What other denominations believe in transubstantiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter epower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

epower

Guest
Are Catholics the ony denomination that believes in transubstantiation?

When I was in high school, my rector taught us that the Episcopal Church was the only other denomination that believed in transubtantiation. I was recently debating some Episcopals online and they told me that I was mistaken when I asserted that Episcopals believed in transubstantiation.

When did they change?

Did they ever believe in transubstantiation?
 
Whether the Episcopalians now believe or have ever believed that the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist becomes the substance of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord at the consecration is irrelevant. Episcopal (and Anglican) clergy are not ordained in apostolic succession and therefore can’t confect the Eucharist.

Lutheran clergy also cannot confect the Eucharist, but Lutherans believe that “In, with, and under the bread Christ gives us His true body; in, with and under the wine He gives us His true blood. (Real Presence.)” *Luther’s small Catechism. *

JMJ Jay
 
40.png
Katholikos:
…Lutheran clergy also cannot confect the Eucharist, but Lutherans believe that “In, with, and under the bread Christ gives us His true body; in, with and under the wine He gives us His true blood. (Real Presence.)” Luther’s small Catechism…
Click to expand...
JMJ​
This is very true. I attended a Lutheran church for some time and almost joined it. They were very nice people indeed. Many “EX”-Catholics in the Lutheran church still believe it is in fact Transubstantiation too! Not what the Lutherans believe but what’s in a word most can’t pronounce or understand or believe anyway?

The Lutherans do believe in consubstantiation (sp?) like you said. Amazing though, when the “bread” and/or “wine” falls on the floor they just step on it. When they’re done with it they just pour it down the garbage disposal or drop it in the garbage.

As a Catholic, I believe in transubstantiation. I would never show disrespect to the body or blood of my Savior by stepping on Him or dropping Him in the garbage.

There is a difference. If the Lutherans really believed that Jesus was in the bread and wine shouldn’t they treat it with just a bit more respect then a floor mat?:hmmm:
 
My gf and neighbor is in the church-with-no-name. When I ask, she says, “We are just the church in S--------”.She believes she receives Jesus in communion. We do not discuss it in depth; don’t know if she can as it seems to be more of an emotional relationship. She was converted by a ‘Jesus freak’ on the road in the '70’s as a teen and studies the Bible; was saved from a wayward life. Said she was Catholic for a short time, but doubt there was good catechisis (it was the '70’s).

I have had chances to witness to RCC belief as when she told me we are idol worshipers; I chuckled and calmly said that statues are there to remind us of our heavenly friends; they are like photos we keep in our home of our loved ones, esp. ones we do not or can no longer see and be with. So she is getting that anti-Catholic stuff from somewhere, perhaps her own interpretation of Scripture.

I pray for her and that we could discuss the Eucharist and other topics. I believe the Holy Spirit has brought us together for a special purpose; pray that seeds would be planted leading her to the True Faith. :gopray2:
 
I have studied the Episcopal Church some (was baptized into it), and from what I understand they do not officially believe anything. What defines the Episcopal Church is the Book of Common Prayer and apostolic succession of the episcopacy, though the RCC denies the validity of the succession. But as far as theology goes you are welcome to believe pretty much whatever you want to believe. Think of it as a church with Catholic-style liturgy but without any discipline. Hence you have some Episcopalians ordinating gay bishops while other Episcopalians condemn them.

I doubt more than a small minority would believe in transubstantiation, though.
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
The Lutherans do believe in consubstantiation (sp?) like you said. Amazing though, when the “bread” and/or “wine” falls on the floor they just step on it. When they’re done with it they just pour it down the garbage disposal or drop it in the garbage.
Click to expand...
Not the Lutherans I know of, LCMS. There may be liberal Lutherans that fit your statement. They have a cabinet to place reserved ‘bread and wine’, not a tabernacle. The ones I see have a reverance as strong as Catholics.

Kotton 🙂
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
The Lutherans do believe in consubstantiation (sp?) like you said. Amazing though, when the “bread” and/or “wine” falls on the floor they just step on it. When they’re done with it they just pour it down the garbage disposal or drop it in the garbage.
Click to expand...
The Lutherans I know do believe in a real presence of a sort, but they do not believe it remains or persists like we do. I believe Luther’s stance was that it lasted during the celebration, but not after. It might depend on which synod they belong to for the Lutherans.
 
**
40.png
epower:
Are Catholics the ony denomination that believes in transubstantiation?
Click to expand...
When I was in high school, my rector taught us that the Episcopal Church was the only other denomination that believed in transubtantiation. I was recently debating some Episcopals online and they told me that I was mistaken when I asserted that Episcopals believed in transubstantiation.
**When did they change? **
Did they ever believe in transubstantiation?**
## The CC is alone in dogmatising transubstantiation as the sole correct description of the effect of the Eucharistic consecration upon the elements - metousios is one term among several used among Greek-speaking Christians; including those in union with Rome, AFAIK
**The 39 Articles of the Church of England do not favour it - it is however believed by some. It is not really consistent with a Reformed (or other type of Protestant Anglican) understanding of the Church. **
As an Erastian type of Church, it has often been for the state to decide upon the interpretation of what is lawful for Anglican ministers to teach - but that is a long story 🙂 ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
****
## The CC is alone in dogmatising transubstantiation as the sole correct description of the effect of the Eucharistic consecration upon the elements - metousios is one term among several used among Greek-speaking Christians; including those in union with Rome, AFAIK
**The 39 Articles of the Church of England do not favour it - it is however believed by some. It is not really consistent with a Reformed (or other type of Protestant Anglican) understanding of the Church. **
As an Erastian type of Church, it has often been for the state to decide upon the interpretation of what is lawful for Anglican ministers to teach - but that is a long story 🙂 ##
Click to expand...

My, yes. So long that I’ve stayed out of this thread so far.

Some Anglicans affirm both Canon 1 and Canon 2 of Session XIII of the Council of Trent. Some only Canon 1. Some neither. It varies. A long story.

My Anglo-Catholic parish has a tabernacle for the Blessed Body and Blood, located in the center of the altar, no one but those in Holy Orders (i.e., no extraordinary ministers in our jurisdiction) may touch or handle the consecrated elements (I’m sure I don’t need to mention that I’m familiar with Apostolicae Curae), the Body and Blood are reverenced, to include Benediction, and reserved, in the tabernacle.

The 39 Articles are not favored by some.

A long story, indeed.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Only Catholics believe in transubstantiation as traditionally defined. Orthodox basically believe in the same thing, but they don’t like the term.
 
40.png
atsheeran:
Only Catholics believe in transubstantiation as traditionally defined. Orthodox basically believe in the same thing, but they don’t like the term.
Click to expand...
Trust me, some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation (as distinquished from the concept of the Real Presence), too. It’s not de fide, but I do know Anglicans who affirm that is how the wheels go around.

GKC
 
40.png
GKC:
Trust me, some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation (as distinquished from the concept of the Real Presence), too. It’s not de fide, but I do know Anglicans who affirm that is how the wheels go around.

GKC
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I was only referring to official teachings of the denominations.
 
40.png
Pug:
The Lutherans I know do believe in a real presence of a sort, but they do not believe it remains or persists like we do. I believe Luther’s stance was that it lasted during the celebration, but not after.
Click to expand...
Actually that was Melanchthon’s theory. Luther on the other hand insisted on excommunicating two Lutheran pastors who poured consecrated wine back into the container with the unconsecrated wine. There’s also a story of Luther kneeling down and licking up the Precious Blood when it spilled from the chalice (this was after his break with the Catholic Church).

The standard approach of more traditional Protestants is to consume all the elements so that issues of this sort don’g arise one way or the other. But I do hear lots of stories of Lutherans reusing consecrated elements, so clearly it happens. I’ve even heard the odd story of Anglicans doing this, although just about every Episcopal church I’ve been in reserved the Sacrament.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
The differing opinions among Lutherans is a weakness in their eucharistic theology they can’t agree how long Jesus is in the eucharist if he is there for the moment or is he really just there period.
And I have heard arguments on their theories of the sacrificial aspects of the rite. Some say it does have a sacrificial aspect others say no not at all.
I get really confused listening to the different Lutheran opinions.
 
I live in the UK. At the Christmas of 2003 some friends and I went to midnight mass at a protestant church, I can’t remember which, it was either Reformed or Methodist. The pastor was a woman and actually ‘consecrated’ the bread and wine. A couple of my friends went up for ‘communion’, but I didn’t, as I wasn’t baptised (won’t be 'til next Easter) so I didn’t go up. They only got blessings anyway, as they weren’t members of that church, but I didn’t realise the invalidity of the Eucharist there until recently. I wonder how many Protestants take their communion without realising what it actually is?
 
40.png
GKC:
Trust me, some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation (as distinquished from the concept of the Real Presence), too. It’s not de fide, but I do know Anglicans who affirm that is how the wheels go around.

GKC
Click to expand...
When I was a member of the Episcopal Church, I was taught that they at one point believed officially in “consubstantiation,” that the substance of Jesus’ Body and Blood was added to the substance of bread and wine. This differs from transubstantiation in that the bread and wine are considered still to be bread and wine. I was also taught that at some point the Episcopal Church changed its teaching and decided that it was “a holy mystery” and that they simply didn’t know what happens. Possibly they abandoned the Aristotelian/Thomist philosophy of substance and accidents, on which this depends.
  • Liberian
 
The Anglican/Methodist branch speaks against Transubstantiation in the Articles of Religion; however, more and more scholars are of the opinion that it was born more of prejudice than theology. Real Presence is embraced by Anglicans and United Methodists, per official documents - but we tend to go the Eastern route and stay away from explaining too much of the mystery away. Catholic scholar Edward Schillebeeckx once coined the term transsignification - which probably better defines the Anglican/Methodist understanding of Real Presence and avoids the somewhat-difficult aspects of Aristotelian/Thomistic definitions of substance and accidents. More and more, sacramental and liturgical practices reflect this understanding.

Many of the eucharistic hymns of John and Charles Wesley used language that was literal, not figurative, regarding the Real Presence of Christ at eucharistic celebrations, as well as sacrificial language. Unfortunately, a lot of “drift” occured in the liturgy in early American Methodism, mainly because of a shortage of ordained clergy to celebrate the sacrament. Wesley made it extremely clear in his writings that a very purposeful and explicit balance must be maintained between the evangelical and sacramental nature of the Church.

As someone noted above, since the ordinations of Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans are not recognized as valid by the Catholic Church, and we can’t “confect” the Eucharist, the question posed on this thread ought to be a moot one to a Catholic. Even if we “believed” in T., we (supposedly) can’t experience it.
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
The Lutherans do believe in consubstantiation (sp?) like you said. Amazing though, when the “bread” and/or “wine” falls on the floor they just step on it. When they’re done with it they just pour it down the garbage disposal or drop it in the garbage.

As a Catholic, I believe in transubstantiation. I would never show disrespect to the body or blood of my Savior by stepping on Him or dropping Him in the garbage.
Click to expand...
I know this is going to come out wrong, but I’ll try anyway.

You got me curious.

What does The Church do with “leftover” Eucharist after a Mass?

Do they reuse it at another mass?
Is there a procedure for disposal?

What if it were to be accidentally dropped on the floor. What is the proper way to deal with that situation?

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top