Transubstantiation...Your Take?

[dshix]

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.

You never responded to this post.

 

[GKC]

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.

No, it isn’t and I was once a Baptist.

OTOH, some Anglicans also have no problem with idea that the Eucharist contains the body and blood, as well as the soul and divinity of Our Lord. Or with the concept of transubstantiation, as a possible explanation of how the wheels go around. Wouldn’t make it de fide, necessarily.

And even more Anglicans are glad, as C.S. Lewis had a character say, that the command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”

GKC.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Oh, please. Transubstantiation only descibes what happens. The belief has been held since the beginning of the Church. Lord God, help me.

 

[GKC]

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

Article 1, of the six:

First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ’s mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man;

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

Article 1, of the six:

First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ’s mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man;

GKC

Thank you. I’ll be interested in what Indifferently has to say about it. These past few days have made me really wonder just how close we are. You have restored my confidence that we are more than kissing cousins.

 

[Indifferently]

Oh, please. Transubstantiation only descibes what happens. The belief has been held since the beginning of the Church. Lord God, help me.

No. Jesus was the Son of God, not an Aristotlean philosopher come to boggle our minds with worldly theories. Likewise, his instructions were clear: Take, eat. Not lift it up. Not carry it about. Not reserve it in a container and stare at it. These are practises directly occasioned by the invention of transubstantiation to ‘explain’ the Real Presence, as if we possess such a faculty.

‘This is my body’ says he. Not ‘This is my body, in this way.’

 

[GKC]

Thank you. I’ll be interested in what Indifferently has to say about it. These past few days have made me really wonder just how close we are. You have restored my confidence that we are more than kissing cousins.

Some of us.

Henry, as has been said, was not a reformer, for the sake of reforming. He occasionally had some original ideas, and, as the power behind the CoE, could get them enforced. One does not, IOW, speak of a Henrician Compromise.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Thank you. I’ll be interested in what Indifferently has to say about it. These past few days have made me really wonder just how close we are. You have restored my confidence that we are more than kissing cousins.

What should I say about it? The Six Articles are nothing more than a historical curiosity at a time under Henry when the Church still held to Roman doctrines and he still persecuted Reformers. He still used the same rites of the Roman Church as well. Change in doctrine was not fully established, Anglicanism was going through its birth pains. The Church which emerged in the reign of Elizabeth I is the Church of England, and its theology is markedly different, both from Rome and from Calvin.

 

[SteveVH]

No. Jesus was the Son of God, not an Aristotlean philosopher come to boggle our minds with worldly theories. Likewise, his instructions were clear: Take, eat. Not lift it up. Not carry it about. Not reserve it in a container and stare at it. These are practises directly occasioned by the invention of transubstantiation to ‘explain’ the Real Presence, as if we possess such a faculty.

‘This is my body’ says he. Not ‘This is my body, in this way.’

From Article 1 of 6

“and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man”

 

[SteveVH]

What should I say about it? The Six Articles are nothing more than a historical curiosity at a time under Henry when the Church still held to Roman doctrines and he still persecuted Reformers. He still used the same rites of the Roman Church as well. Change in doctrine was not fully established, Anglicanism was going through its birth pains. The Church which emerged in the reign of Elizabeth I is the Church of England, and its theology is markedly different, both from Rome and from Calvin.

So you admit that the Church of England doctrines were invented after 1534 and did not exist 1400 years ago, correct?

 

[Indifferently]

So you admit that the Church of England doctrines were invented after 1534 and did not exist 1400 years ago, correct?

No. The reforms were only such as to restore the Catholic Faith as handed down to the Apostles by Jesus and taught in the early, conciliar, universal Church, which by degrees had been changed and innovations introduced by various Popes. It’s all there, in the Prayer Book - the faith of the Apostles.

 

[SteveVH]

No. The reforms were only such as to restore the Catholic Faith as handed down to the Apostles by Jesus and taught in the early, conciliar, universal Church, which by degrees had been changed and innovations introduced by various Popes. It’s all there, in the Prayer Book - the faith of the Apostles.

Mormons claim the same thing. So what? Do you believe in the “Great Apostasy” as well?

 

[GKC]

No. Jesus was the Son of God, not an Aristotlean philosopher come to boggle our minds with worldly theories. Likewise, his instructions were clear: Take, eat. Not lift it up. Not carry it about. Not reserve it in a container and stare at it. These are practises directly occasioned by the invention of transubstantiation to ‘explain’ the Real Presence, as if we possess such a faculty.

‘This is my body’ says he. Not ‘This is my body, in this way.’

And yet, there’s St. Mary’s, Bourne Street, and their Corpus Christi procession and their Benediction, pro exemplo.

GKC

 

[GKC]

What should I say about it? The Six Articles are nothing more than a historical curiosity at a time under Henry when the Church still held to Roman doctrines and he still persecuted Reformers. He still used the same rites of the Roman Church as well. Change in doctrine was not fully established, Anglicanism was going through its birth pains. The Church which emerged in the reign of Elizabeth I is the Church of England, and its theology is markedly different, both from Rome and from Calvin.

And there’s the Ten Articles, too.

GKC