FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Do Anglicans/Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation (like Catholics, Orthodox, etc) consubstantiation (like Lutherans), or a purely symbolic Eucharist (like most Protestants)?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Eucharist
- Thread starter FerventGodSeeker
- Start date
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Just for clarification, we don't believe in transubstantiation - that's purely Roman Catholic. We do believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist but leave it as a Mystery. Any talk of substances and accidents and the like would be shunned as scholastic speculation - we merely accept that the bread and wine truly are the Body and Blood in some way which we cannot explain. I'd like to know which (if any) of these positions the Anglicans tend to hold. I would suspect it's more likely to be close to us or the RCs than the symbolic view held by some Protestants.
James
James
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
That is what all the Anglican Communion teach.
You can see that is not Just symbolic, with the care we take of any leftover excess.
This is Further complicated by the fact there are many Anglican Churches outside the communion. Who left either for political or Dogma reasons; I know at least some of those lean to the catholic stance.
this is a full list of Anglican churches not in the Communion Some are very small)
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19332
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
What do you make of this?
Article XXVIII of the XXXIX Articles says:
"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, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Thirty-nine Articles are not considered dogma for the ECUSA. That being said, I would think that most Episcopalians would agree (at least somewhat) with that statement, since most Episcopalians do not espouse transubstantiation.
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I'm pretty sure the answer is no. My RC father in law and a good friend who is the assistant rector at the Episcopalian church I occasionally attend, frequently argue about it (my father in law always brings it up).
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
So the whole Book of Common Prayer is Episcopalian dogma, or just those pages?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No. The BCP is our version of the Missal (sort of). The Outline of Faith is found on those particular pages of the BCP.
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Sorry, call me ignorant...what is the BCP, and what is the Missal?
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Aksum, Methodios Fouyas in his book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism says,
"Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ." (Fouyas, page 187, footnote refers to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat 22; John of Damascus, De Fide Orth 4:13; John Chrysostom, Hom 82:4 in Matt as well as the Council of Trent, Session 13)
<snip>
"This is not quite accurate, because the Orthodox Church does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation,' but it does not attach to it the materialistic meaning which is given by the Latins. The Orthodox Church uses the word 'Transubstantiation' not to define the MANNER in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood of the Lord, but only to insist on the FACT that the Bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In this sense it is interpreted by St. John of Damascus [Holy and Immaculate Mysteries, Cap 13:7]." (Fouyas, page 188-189, footnote refers also to the Orthodox Councils of Jerusalem [1672] and of Constantinople [1727] )
<snip>
"In the same manner the majority of the Orthodox theologians used, for the idea of Transubstantiation, a Greek term drawn from the teaching of the ancient Greek Fathers; the terms used include Metousiosis, Metabole, Trope, Metapoiesis, etc, or the Slavonic Presushchestvlenie, equivalent of the Greek Metousiosis. The Slavonic word Sushchestvo corresponds not to substantia, but to ousia (essentia)." (Fouyas, page 189)
<snip>
"The difference between Orthodox and Romans is this: the latter used this word to mean the special theory according to which the change is made, but the Orthodox used it to mean the FACT of the change, according to the Patristic conception." (Fouyas, page 189)
Although Im still unclear as to what real presence means to Anglicans and Episcopalians?
lunamoth
Will to love
For those interested I put the whole catechism from the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) in this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39416
There's also a little other info about the BCP in that thread.
added: on p 4 of the thread is the part about the Eucharist.
Anglicans are united by our form of worship moreso than by dogma, and the BCP outlines our worship. It's an interesting topic which I'm happy to discuss, but not to debate.
FWIW, I would agree with what James posted with repsect to Real Presence in the Eucharist.
There's also a little other info about the BCP in that thread.
added: on p 4 of the thread is the part about the Eucharist.
Anglicans are united by our form of worship moreso than by dogma, and the BCP outlines our worship. It's an interesting topic which I'm happy to discuss, but not to debate.
FWIW, I would agree with what James posted with repsect to Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Am I safe in noting that the ECUSA has no official position on the Eucharist? Or is this just a case of "it's just not in writing, but we do believe it"?
Thus far, it seems both luna and soj have agreed with James, so I was just wanting to know how close that is to official teaching if it indeed exists?
Thus far, it seems both luna and soj have agreed with James, so I was just wanting to know how close that is to official teaching if it indeed exists?
lunamoth
Will to love
There is not an 'official doctrine' on this.
"How Christ comes to us in the Eucharist is far less important than the fact that when we receive the bread and wine, Christ truely comes into our lives."
(Welcome to the Episcopal Church by Christopher L Webber)
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Thanks. That is, of course, what I meant. Some Orthodox do use the term transsubstantiation in English, but not to mean what a Roman Catholic would. The manner of change is left as Mystery - the fact that the bread and wine truly becomne the Body and Blood is affirmed categorically but with no attempt to explain how. It just is. I'd note, though, that whilst you have indeed found a few instances of Orthodox writers using transubstantiation, they are a distinct minority. Most are very wary of the term, not because it is inherently wrong, but because it can cause confusion. We don't agree with the RC view of transubstantiation at all, and that is what most people view as the meaning of the word. Having said that, the difference is small but Orthodox are very cautious about over-rational speculative theology as found in scholasticism (to the point of having anathematised it at the Palamite Councils).
James
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
What I have always found interesting is that if you read the 39 articles of faith as given by the Anglican communion , You can easily see that these are mainline protestant statements, even anti catholic in nature.
If you read the catechism of the Anglican communion You get no such understanding.
Very few Anglicans or even our priest give much emphasis to the articles... That is if a lay person ever reads them at all.
I personally find that I do not believe many of them, nor feel obliged to do so.. If I did I would more likely be a Calvinist or Lutheran.
In my life time I have not noticed a moving away from belief in the articles; more an almost total ignorance of them.
The reaction of many Church of England goers,on being presented with them, would be almost a Disbelief that they applied to their church.
If you read the catechism of the Anglican communion You get no such understanding.
Very few Anglicans or even our priest give much emphasis to the articles... That is if a lay person ever reads them at all.
I personally find that I do not believe many of them, nor feel obliged to do so.. If I did I would more likely be a Calvinist or Lutheran.
In my life time I have not noticed a moving away from belief in the articles; more an almost total ignorance of them.
The reaction of many Church of England goers,on being presented with them, would be almost a Disbelief that they applied to their church.