transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_carr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Orthodox do not use the term transubstiation, but yet believe in the Real Presence.
 
mark_carr said:
Some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation but not like the RC. The CoE teaches that the bread and wine remain the accidents.The substance what makes bread bread and wine wine changes into the body and blood of Christ. Where the RC teaches that inside and outside of the elements changes. There are some Anglicans that don’t believe this. The CoE doesn’t demand the Belief of this doctrine like the RC does of their
Click to expand...
And there are some Anglicans who do.

GKC
 
JonNC said:
Indeed so, though one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is a bit more nuanced:
“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.”

Jon
Click to expand...
👍 👍
 
I was listening to a Journey Home radio program from this year and the convert said that his Lutheran (parish?, Independent church?) held to Transsubtantiation, exactly the way the RC does. The host said he had never heard of that before. Pretty soon it will be motley, those Lutherans are.
 
mark_carr said:
Some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation but not like the RC. The CoE teaches that the bread and wine remain the accidents.The substance what makes bread bread and wine wine changes into the body and blood of Christ. Where the RC teaches that inside and outside of the elements changes. There are some Anglicans that don’t believe this. The CoE doesn’t demand the Belief of this doctrine like the RC does of their
Click to expand...
I’m confused a little by your term elements I’m not familiar with this from Thomism. The accidents remain the same but the substance changes yes I’ve always understood. Don’t Catholics believe the accidents remain accidents? It’s the substance that’s important. Not literally what you see. “…inside and outside of the elements changes.” Can you point to the Summa ? Or at least CCC?

Bill
:confused:
 
GKC said:
And they may or may not have valid orders, for a few other reasons.

And, assuming they do, they may confect a valid, though illicit, Eucharist, if a number of other sacramental factors are also valid. If the sacramental intent is to do what the Church does, in the sacrament, that is one such requirement.
Click to expand...
True. But, according to the OP, this hypothetical former-Catholic-priest-turned-Anglican-minister doesn’t believe in transubstantiation. Could we really say that he “intends to do what the Church does in the sacrament of the Eucharist”? That is, to consecrate Eucharist that he doesn’t believe has the substance of Christ but the accidents of bread and wine? That’s not what the Church intends, and so, it seems difficult to conclude that it would be valid. 🤷
 
Gorgias said:
True. But, according to the OP, this hypothetical former-Catholic-priest-turned-Anglican-minister doesn’t believe in transubstantiation. Could we really say that he “intends to do what the Church does in the sacrament of the Eucharist”? That is, to consecrate Eucharist that he doesn’t believe has the substance of Christ but the accidents of bread and wine? That’s not what the Church intends, and so, it seems difficult to conclude that it would be valid. 🤷
Click to expand...
Are you sure that was what the OP was asserting?

Perhaps. But if one merely intends * facere quod facit ecclesia,* even without knowing what that might be, he fulfills the requirement for valid sacramental intent. And he may indeed believe in transub (hypothetically). He would have (one assumes), as a RC priest, may continue to do so as an Anglican priest. And Anglicans may, indeed, affirm transub, as an explication of the Real Presence.

OTOH, if one constructs an hypothetical situation in which a RC priest does not accept transub, but restricts that doubt to an interior state, without anything which can serve as a determinatio ex adiunctis, as to sacramental intent, is the sacrament validly confected, other things being equal? AFAIK, the answer is yes.

GKC
 
mark_carr said:
ANglicans believe in the real presense in the eucharist just like Catholics. They dont admit to transubstantiation. Its just left as a mystery that cant be explained.Do you have to believs in it to have a eucharist?
Click to expand...
There’s not a single thing I’ve read in Holy Scripture to suggest that Anglicans have an invalid Eucharist. If you know of something that shows otherwise, I’d be interested in hearing about it. We definitely believe in the real presence but some of us believe different aspects of that.
 
Duane1966 said:
I was listening to a Journey Home radio program from this year and the convert said that his Lutheran (parish?, Independent church?) held to Transsubtantiation, exactly the way the RC does. The host said he had never heard of that before. Pretty soon it will be motley, those Lutherans are.
Click to expand...
Plenty of room for motley Lutherans. And I’ve heard of such as those.

GKC
 
jritenour said:
There’s not a single thing I’ve read in Holy Scripture to suggest that Anglicans have an invalid Eucharist. If you know of something that shows otherwise, I’d be interested in hearing about it. We definitely believe in the real presence but some of us believe different aspects of that.
Click to expand...
It’s not scripture that a RC would point to on that. It’s would be an Apostolic Letter dated 18 Sep 1896, dealing not with the Eucharist or Eucharistic theology, but with Anglican Orders.

GKC
 
GKC said:
It’s not scripture that a RC would point to on that. It’s would be an Apostolic Letter dated 18 Sep 1896, dealing not with the Eucharist or Eucharistic theology, but with Anglican Orders.

GKC
Click to expand...
Are Apostolic Letters inspired by God?
 
Randy_Carson said:
No. Transubstantiation does not depend upon the belief of the one receiving. It depends on the valid ordination of the celebrant as well as the form of the ritual, the matter to be consecrated, and intent of the celebrant.

If the Eucharist is validly consecrated, then Jesus is present regardless of what the recipient believes. If not properly consecrated, then again, it does not matter what the receipient believes - Jesus is not present.

This is why Jesus is not actually present in Anglican and Lutheran communions. They believe otherwise, but 'tain’t so.
Click to expand...
So is it the celebrant who through his actions makes Jesus present? Doesn’t Jesus have any control over this and an ability to make himself present wherever he wants? So even if Jesus wanted, he couldn’t make himself present in an Anglican or Lutheran communion? ;),
 
billcu1 said:
I’m confused a little by your term elements I’m not familiar with this from Thomism. The accidents remain the same but the substance changes yes I’ve always understood. Don’t Catholics believe the accidents remain accidents? It’s the substance that’s important. Not literally what you see. “…inside and outside of the elements changes.” Can you point to the Summa ? Or at least CCC?

Bill
:confused:
Click to expand...
%
Correct me if Iam wrong. The Catholic church believe that after consecration there is no more bread and wine it changes into the body and blood even if we see bread and wine. Not only does the substance change so does the bread and wine the matter or accidents.Anglicans believe the bread and wine remains but the substance changes into the body and blood.Elements are a short way of say bread and wine.
 
mark_carr said:
%
Correct me if Iam wrong. The Catholic church believe that after consecration there is no more bread and wine it changes into the body and blood even if we see bread and wine. Not only does the substance change so does the bread and wine the matter or accidents.Anglicans believe the bread and wine remains but the substance changes into the body and blood.Elements are a short way of say bread and wine.
Click to expand...
What Anglicans believe depends on which Anglican you are asking, the variety range from those who believe exactly as Catholics to those who believe the same as evangelicals.
 
SyroMalankara said:
What Anglicans believe depends on which Anglican you are asking, the variety range from those who believe exactly as Catholics to those who believe the same as evangelicals.
Click to expand...
I think what I wrote is the main teaching of the CoE. There are Anglicans that believe in total change and there are ones that believe in no change at all. The Anglican church isn’t a doctrine church.you can believe want you want as long as it is in scriptures.Now that was what I was taught. another Anglican might not agree.
 
mark_carr said:
I think what I wrote is the main teaching of the CoE. There are Anglicans that believe in total change and there are ones that believe in no change at all. The Anglican church isn’t a doctrine church.you can believe want you want as long as it is in scriptures.Now that was what I was taught. another Anglican might not agree.
Click to expand...
Anglicans are like that, yes. There’s even a word for it.

GKC
 
Duane1966 said:
I was listening to a Journey Home radio program from this year and the convert said that his Lutheran (parish?, Independent church?) held to Transsubtantiation, exactly the way the RC does. The host said he had never heard of that before. Pretty soon it will be motley, those Lutherans are.
Click to expand...
It is rare, but not unheard of. In fact, there is a Lutheran poster here, who is a priest in the Church of Norway, that tends to lean toward Transubstantiation.

Further, in Lutheran - Catholic dialogue there have been statements by Lutheran and Catholic theologians that believe the two expressions (Transubstantiation and Sacrament Union) should not be considered Church- dividing.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top