High Anglican and Catholic Differences and Similarities

[Pink Spider]

,
.
Excellent answers - me,
being a new Anglican,
I learned A LOT!

Thank you all!
.
.

 

[Albion]

This is well-stated.

I just wanted to emphasize that Real Presence is a mystery (the Greek word translated into the Latin sacrament), as it is for Orthodox and for Methodists. We understand that we receive the body and blood of Jesus.

There is little need for explanation of the mechanics. I'm not even sure how important it is to understand whether the bread is still there. What we know is that Jesus is truly there.

Yes, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation does explain the mechanics. What's left as a mystery is simply how God makes this occur.

That's why it's often said that we Anglicans do not explain the mechanics or that we do not have a theory that spells out the mechanics of how bread is brought into the church and yet it's not ordinary bread that is consumed.

 

[Sean611]

All fantastic answers!

I would just add that you shouldn't be surprised if a fellow Roman Catholic tells you that the spiritual presence is somehow less of a presence (or not a real presence at all) than the physical. I would not get hung up on that. It is important to understand that spiritual food is real food and a spiritual body is a real body. The spiritual is not to be seen as less or as something less real. What does all of this mean and how does it work? That is something that we leave to mystery, all we know is that we do receive Christ's body and blood and that he is really and truly present. The main hang-up between the RCC and Anglicans is transubstantiation. It was either Richard Hooker, or maybe it was Lancelot Andrewes, who said that if the RCC gets rid of that doctrine and leave it to mystery, then we would be in agreement on the Eucharist.

This blog post really helped me understand the Classical Anglican position on the Eucharist:

On The Eucharist: Spiritual Food Is Real Food | The Conciliar Anglican

 

[Albion]

This blog post really helped me understand the Classical Anglican position on the Eucharist:

On The Eucharist: Spiritual Food Is Real Food | The Conciliar Anglican

Yes, that's a really good explanation of the subject.

 

[RileyG]

This is well-stated.

I just wanted to emphasize that Real Presence is a mystery (the Greek word translated into the Latin sacrament), as it is for Orthodox and for Methodists. We understand that we receive the body and blood of Jesus.

There is little need for explanation of the mechanics. I'm not even sure how important it is to understand whether the bread is still there. What we know is that Jesus is truly there.

I thought Anglicans (and Lutherans) do believe in the real presence of the body and blood but just will do not attempt to define a mystery because it's a mystery.

That is my understanding?

Methodists do not believe in the real presence of the body and blood, but only a spiritual presence if I am not mistaken.

 

[RileyG]

There's a minority of Anglicans that do not believe the Real Presence, or they reinterpret the concept in such a radically subjective way as to be very much at odds with Roman Catholic sentiments. Sydney Anglicans would be a classic example. But on the whole, I do not believe there's a lot of difference between the RC and Anglicans on this issue.

I've read some of the early Anglican Eucharistic theology. It's just not clear at all whether they were in substantial agreement with modern Roman Catholics, or not. They clearly were reacting to perceived carnal views of the Eucharist, but beyond that it's hard to say. Thomas Cranmer, much like Luther, was not a really systematic theologian on this subject, or many others (he was crazy about Predestination, though, as were many theologians at the time).

Huge amounts of ink and vitriol have been spilled among Protestants about the nature of the Eucharist. It's ironic that a sacrament that is supposed to make us all one has been such a battleground. I believe its due to the Western tendency to want to explain, reduce, or deconstruct. Even Roman Catholics did this to some extent with the very concept of transubstantiation.

thanks for your answer

 

[Albion]

I thought Anglicans (and Lutherans) do believe in the real presence of the body and blood but just will do not attempt to define a mystery because it's a mystery.

That is my understanding?

No. As I was saying before, there's some truth in that familiar comment but it's not the final answer on the matter.

Lutherans believe essentially what Catholics do except that they do not believe that the bread and wine are turned into Christ's literal flesh and blood. When you commune, you receive the bread and also the body, etc.

Anglicans believe that Christ is present but in a spiritual or heavenly manner. The link you were given by Sean a few posts back is quite good and I commend it to you if you haven't read it yet.

Methodists do not believe in the real presence of the body and blood, but only a spiritual presence if I am not mistaken.

A spiritual presence is not a denial of the Real Presence. A Spiritual presence is still a presence. It does not mean that it only symbolizes or represents Christ.

So that statement is incorrect on its face. As for the Methodists, their church grew out of the Anglican Church so many Methodists naturally believe in the Anglican view of this matter, but there are those who believe the sacrament is only symbolic.

 

[RileyG]

No. As I was saying before, there's some truth in that familiar comment but it's not the final answer on the matter.

Lutherans believe essentially what Catholics do except that they do not believe that the bread and wine are turned into Christ's literal flesh and blood. When you commune, you receive the bread and also the body, etc.

Anglicans believe that Christ is present but in a spiritual or heavenly manner. The link you were given by Sean a few posts back is quite good and I commend it to you if you haven't read it yet.


A spiritual presence is not a denial of the Real Presence. A Spiritual presence is still a presence. It does not mean that it only symbolizes or represents Christ.

So that statement is incorrect on its face. As for the Methodists, their church grew out of the Anglican Church so many Methodists naturally believe in the Anglican view of this matter, but there are those who believe the sacrament is only symbolic.

Thank you for your answers and re- clarifying.

 

[John Shrewsbury]

In the UK most Methodist believe the Presence is spiritual only. I have never met any Methodist who takes the more traditional Anglican view.

Anglo Catholics tend to believe in the Real Presence. Some don't, but most do. In my church, which is Anglo Catholic, this would be the majority view.

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, there is nothing in Anglicanism that denies a physical presence. Only that transubstantiation's dogmatization is wrong.

 

[Pink Spider]

.
.

[...] Only that transubstantiation's
dogmatization
is wrong.

How come? Can You please explain.
Sorry for my ignorance....
.
.

 

[PaladinValer]

.
.


How come? Can You please explain.
Sorry for my ignorance....
.
.

Two things need to be understood: what is a dogma and what is Transubstantiationism.

A dogma is a doctrine that is infallible, either because it is clear out of the Deposit of Faith (Holy Scripture) or because an Ecumenical Council, based on a continuous interpretation thereof, has declared it so and makes it an absolute, undeniable requirement to be a member.

Transubstantiationism is a Real Presence Eucharistic theology which teaches, upon the Words of Institution by a priest or bishop in valid Holy Orders, the actual substances of the Elements changes into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, leaving only accidentals behind (in other words, they will still taste like bread and wine and have outward properties of the same, but in reality, the Body and Blood have obliterated the substances of them), at that specific point in the liturgy.

The declaring the infallibility of this belief is, to Anglicans, silly at best and superstitious at worst. The idea that we must believe that the Real Presence works in that particular way when it likely was not for centuries and also that He becomes Present at a specific time (also with the same objection) does make it sound magical, even though that isn't the intent.

But the specifics of Transubstantiation isn't with its physical aspect but with its particularities: the necessary obliteration of the Elements and when it occurs. Thus, to say that the Articles or Anglicanism in general rejects a physical presence is not truthful, since the very theology is quite defining in scope.

As an aside see nothing wrong with Transubstantiationism as a pious belief, but its dogmatization is overkill and definitely its necessity of adherence is well outside orthodox Anglicanism.

 

[FireDragon76]

So that statement is incorrect on its face. As for the Methodists, their church grew out of the Anglican Church so many Methodists naturally believe in the Anglican view of this matter, but there are those who believe the sacrament is only symbolic.

I grew up Methodist . We were never told the Eucharist was anything but a symbol. It's my understanding that Memorialism is widespread in the United Methodist Church, regardless of official UMC doctrine.

It's safe to say that Episcopalians have a very high Eucharistic theology even though there is also Zwinglian influence of the subjective emphasis on the Eucharist being a memorial given to the individual. In the 1979 BCP, there's a translation of Aquinas' hymn Pange Lingua (Now My Tongue the Mystery Telling), after all, that describes the general medieval understanding of transubstantiation.

 

[Albion]

I grew up Methodist . We were never told the Eucharist was anything but a symbol.

I don't doubt it, but that is why I mentioned that many members don't believe in the Real Presence. However, I'd recommend reading the official documents of the church, if we are going to say what it officially stands for. I did that, but in the Methodist congregation that I have the most acquaintanceship with, the pastor makes it clear what the church believes--and it's RP.

 

[Albion]

Actually, there is nothing in Anglicanism that denies a physical presence. Only that transubstantiation's dogmatization is wrong.

Other than the BCP and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, that is.

 

[PaladinValer]

Other than the BCP and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, that is.

Nope. There is nothing in those that denies an Objective Presence theology, only the distinctive Transubstantiationist theology.

Objective Presence is general; Transubstantiationism is particular.

 

[Albion]

Nope. There is nothing in those that denies an Objective Presence theology, only the distinctive Transubstantiationist theology.

Objective Presence is general; Transubstantiationism is particular.

When I read this following:

"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, ONLY after an heavenly and spiritual manner...." I conclude that the meaning is that the presence is heavenly and spiritual, but not physical. Of course, so also do most Anglicans.

 

[PaladinValer]

When I read this following:

"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, ONLY after an heavenly and spiritual manner...." I conclude that the meaning is that the presence is heavenly and spiritual, but not physical. Of course, so also do most Anglicans.

Jesus isn't heavenly and spiritual?

 

[Albion]

Jesus isn't heavenly and spiritual?

Don't forget the "only."

 

[FireDragon76]

One must be careful contrasting the physical and the spiritual. The whole point of incarnational theology is that they are not two seperate realities.

Transubstantiation does not suggest a local presence of Christ in the bread: Jesus Christ is not circumscribed by a wafer. However, the substantial presence of Christ in the sacrament is affirmed (local and substantial having entirely different meanings philosophically).

I think its not unlike the Anglican theology of Virtualism, in some ways. The bread becomes the Body of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't necessarily imply that Body is fleshly or carnal, and indeed Transubstantiation affirms that the Host has all the physical properties of ordinary bread, and not human flesh. The physical properties are not illusory , but nonetheless are incidental- the true spiritual nature of the Host has been transformed into the Body of Christ.