quick question regarding anglicanism

[Hoonbaba]

Do Anglicans believe in transubstatiation?

God bless!

-Jason

 

[jukesk9]

I have a close friend who is very active in the Episcopal Church.  He personally believes that the host and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.  But, he doesn't believe that the bread and wine are transubstantiated.  From the 39 Articles, which are contained in the Book of Common Prayer (which, my friend has "made" me read several times):
<H3>XXVIII <I>Of the Lord's Supper</I></H3>The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Chrsit; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper of the Lord is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

The big problem I see the Anglican Church having&nbsp;with us Catholics in regards to the Eucharist is us having Perpetual Adoration, which they do not (very last part of the article).&nbsp;&nbsp;Yet, as stated above, it seems that they believe the bread is the Body of Christ and the wine is the Blood of Christ.&nbsp;

Now, from their official Catechism, they believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice:

Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

And it seems they believe the Eucharist to be the actual Body and Blood:

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.

http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/bcp/outline.html#creeds&nbsp;

Is where the Catechism can be found.&nbsp; To read the entire 39 Articles, just type in said in Yahoo and pick a site.

Confusing, isn't it?

 

[VOW]

To Neal:

Perhaps the Anglican/Episcopal belief is that it BECOMES the Body and Blood, once it is consumed.

What breaks my heart, though, is the phrase "Transubstantiation ... is repugnant..." In the book I have called Creeds of the Churches, that particular wording appears again and again in the non-Catholic Christian creeds.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[isshinwhat]

You mean Jason, I think.

 

[VOW]

LOL, probably.

I bought some vitamins that the clerk at the Health Food Store said would improve my memory.

I forgot where I put them.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by jukesk9
I have&nbsp;a close friend who is very active in the Episcopal Church.&nbsp; He personally believes that the host and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.&nbsp; But, he doesn't believe that the bread and wine are transubstantiated.&nbsp; From the 39 Articles, which are contained in the Book of Common Prayer (which, my friend has "made" me read several times):

<H3>XXVIII <I>Of the Lord's Supper</I></H3>The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Chrsit; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper of the Lord is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

The big problem I see the Anglican Church having&nbsp;with us Catholics in regards to the Eucharist is us having Perpetual Adoration, which they do not (very last part of the article).&nbsp;&nbsp;Yet, as stated above, it seems that they believe the bread is the Body of Christ and the wine is the Blood of Christ.&nbsp;

Now, from their official Catechism, they believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice:

Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

And it seems they believe the Eucharist to be the actual Body and Blood:

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.

http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/bcp/outline.html#creeds&nbsp;

Is where the Catechism can be found.&nbsp; To read the entire 39 Articles, just type in said in Yahoo and pick a site.

Confusing, isn't it?

Wow...that's fascinating!&nbsp; Thanks for sharing

God bless!

-Jason

 

[Hoonbaba]

VOW,

Does it really matter if one believe's in transubstatiation or not?&nbsp; Isn't acknowledging something along the lines of the Anglican view of the eucharist sufficient?

Just curious.

-Jason

 

[dignitized]

I know I'm not going to be popular for saying this - however that has never stopped me before so - here it goes

I believe firmly in the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, what more I happen to agree that transubstantiation is the correct way to explain that presence. I will not however condemn a brother for not seeing Transubstantiation as the way of explaining the Real Presence. I cannot justify dividing over how we explain a doctrinal belief. It is enough for me that they believe that when the receive the Eucharist that Jesus Christ is real and present in it. How they come to understand HOW God is present in the Eucharist is secondary in my book.

 

[VOW]

To Jason:

When you attend Mass and watch the priest following the distribution of Communion, he is so careful in rinsing out the utensils which contained the consecrated host and wine. I've watched a priest pick up the crumbs of bread on his finger and then eat them. Any leftover wine is drunk. Another priest uses an entire cruet of water to rinse the bowl containing the bread and the chalice containing the wine, and then drink every drop. NOTHING is permitted to be wasted.

What happens to the "leftovers" from an Anglican communion?



Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by VOW
To Jason:

When you attend Mass and watch the priest following the distribution of Communion, he is so careful in rinsing out the utensils which contained the consecrated host and wine. I've watched a priest pick up the crumbs of bread on his finger and then eat them. Any leftover wine is drunk. Another priest uses an entire cruet of water to rinse the bowl containing the bread and the chalice containing the wine, and then drink every drop. NOTHING is permitted to be wasted.

What happens to the "leftovers" from an Anglican communion?



Peace be with you,
~VOW

Hi VOW,

Honestly I don't know what goes on in an Anglican communion, but what you shared is eye-opening!!

The next time I take communion, I'm gonna make sure I get every little bit of the wafer as well as the wine

It's inspiring!

-Jason

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by Br. Max
I know I'm not going to be popular for saying this - however that has never stopped me before so - here it goes

I believe firmly in the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, what more I happen to agree that transubstantiation is the correct way to explain that presence. I will not however condemn a brother for not seeing Transubstantiation as the way of explaining the Real Presence. I cannot justify dividing over how we explain a doctrinal belief. It is enough for me that they believe that when the receive the Eucharist that Jesus Christ is real and present in it. How they come to understand HOW God is present in the Eucharist is secondary in my book.

Hi Br. Max,

I think there's much truth in what you're saying.&nbsp; I get the impression one does not have to understand all the dynamics of the Eucharist in order to experience the Eucharist.&nbsp; It's sorta like how we don't have to know every scientific fact about human bodies in order do things like eating, sleeping, talking, etc.

God bless!

-Jason

 

[isshinwhat]

Yeah.&nbsp; I don't think the problem lies in not understanding the Real Presence, but in the rejection of it. You can not understand something and accept it, or you can say, "I don't understand it, so I cannot accept it." One places your opinion above a revelation of God, the other is a humble admission of a limitation.

We accept Christ as God. We say he was born of a virgin. Those are big claims to swallow. I don't think Transubstantiation is any more off the wall, just easier to dismiss...

God Bless,

Neal