I share your frustrations. I have noticed that Catholics for example have lots of options when it comes to Apologetics but for some reason it's difficult to find Anglicans in apologetics like our brother in the video. Maybe someone will come to this comment thread and share recommendations
Having read Scripture Augustine, some of Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and the Easstern Fathers I got exhausted and finally just accepted the 39 Articles as the simple clear basis for dogmatic belief. Still working on the Life in Faith. Keep it up boyo and lead with your left.
And furthermore, the ARCIC has agreed that Anglicans and Roman Catholics (as related to the presence) believe the same with different wording and that our views are congruent while being expressed in different forms (of course we have other issues as how the sacrament is exercised i.e. ordination of women) but the matter of the real presence is not a church dividing issue among us.
I wish I could find a Gafcon church in my small town in Canada. I researched them online and the first clue was a statement of being inclusive, then a lady in the ministry team, which tends to be a bad sign. Then I found one of the churches put a "happy pride month" notice on their outside message board, that usually rightfully contains a scripture. My heart sank. I guess most of the Anglican churches are gutted now, unless they are Gafcon.
Your explanation is very much what I was taught as a Presbyterian, a spiritual real presence. I hold to that truth but think communion remains a mystery more easily experienced than defined.
@@oneandonlymoth Google search “communion under one kind.” Communion under both kinds requires special permission from a bishop in most countries, and was discouraged post-Reformation because it was seen as “too Protestant.”
@@oneandonlymothUnfortunately Catholics do not receive both, only the bread and this is one of the reasons I've been considering Anglo-Catholicism (almost considered Orthodox but they reject the filioque which is biblically evident).
Call it what you will whether it be transubstantiation or whatever but as far as I'm aware the mojority of christians believe in the true (corporal) presence in the Eucharist. That takes in Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, all the Orthodox Churches, Lutherans & most Anglo-Catholic (Anglicans). Any comments please?
Many thanks for this excellent presentation. As a fellow anglican, I would add that many in the classic tradition also see the eucharist as a memorial presentation of bread and wine in praise and worship to God - this is the "...did command us to continue... a perpetual memory" of the 1662 BCP. Also, it is my understanding that educated Lutherans (e.g. Dr Jordan Cooper) do not use (and in fact would reject) the term "consubtantiation" - I think they would use the term "sacramental union" instead.
Genuine question here: You say that there is evidence that the Jews would have rejected transubstantiation if they had known about it but they did - John 6:60 tells us that the Disciples did indeed reject Christ's teaching when they said "this is a hard teaching, who can accept it"? and many walked away. At no point did Christ say "hey, come back, it's only a spiritual symbol". Just wondering, as I'm trying to figure this out, what you think was going on in John 6:60? Many thanks.
Well it's not just a symbol. We do literally, or "verily and indeed" eat His flesh and blood. We just don't do it physically. Also, part of what is offensive about it is that Christ is implicitly claiming to be God, since it's He Who gives life.
XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper. 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 it 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 Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ... 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 is Faith.
Jesus Christ teaches, the bread, WHEN BLESSED, " IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@moutonfamily2020 I agree, there is no logic to God! Yes, the same Jesus Christ who walked the earth, was at the same time, He who created the world, for WITH GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE! Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestants add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus Christ! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
One of the problems that I see with the doctrine of transubstantiation is that it is based on Aristotelian metaphysics. Aristotle had no scientific knowledge regarding the nature of matter, so he devised categories based on his subjective reasoning. There is no more scientific basis for understanding matter in terms of substance and accident than there is for believing that disease is caused by a miasma, or that the human body is made up of the four humors of blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile.
The east has always held to the real presence (which in a way may also be called "transubstantiation" in the broader sense of the term, signifying the belief in a physical change) without making use of aristotelian metaphysics and all this talk of accidents and substance. It is simply early church teaching.
@@Bellg I sometimes wonder if, for a modern audience, it would be better to say "ontological change" instead of "physical." Otherwise it seems like you have to get into talk of accidents and substance to explain that "physical" does not mean something reductive and sterile like "the atoms always necessarily rearrange themselves from carbohydrates and glucose into proteins and fat." Sometimes it feels like everyone is saying the same thing in different centuries language. The Eastern Orthodox confirm the real presence in the language of 800 AD and earlier, the Roman Catholics in the language of 1200 AD and earlier, and the Lutherans/Anglo-Catholics in the language of 1800 AD and earlier.
Anglo-Catholics generally do not reject transubstantiation, or subscribe to the 39 Articles in their entirety; there is not doctrinal uniformity in Anglicanism, which is an ecclesial communion, and not a church with a magisterium to determine doctrine binding on all.
No magisterium in a church that is synodical in nature. We do have the three legged stool of scripture, tradition and reason to determine how doctrine is interpreted and applied so that it can make connections with living in the world today.
I believe in Transubstantiation. I believe Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine when consecrated and this becomes the actual body and blood of Christ.
I don’t understand this doctrine, do Catholics still believe that the wafer is no longer made of carbohydrates, or that the wine is no longer alcoholic?
@@henryc7548 Transubstantiation was always believed by Christians up until the Reformation. Only Catholics and Orthodox still believe that it is a 'Mystery'. We also know from many Early Church Fathers, to take the words of Christ literally in John 6. To name just two - Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, “Now that you have had this teaching and are imbued with surest belief that what seems to be bread is not bread, though it has the taste, but Christ’s body, and what seems to be wine is not wine, even if it appears so to the taste, but Christ’s blood.” Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) wrote `This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood,’ to prevent your thinking that what is seen is a figure; on the contrary what has truly been offered is transformed in a hidden way by the all-powerful God into Christ’s body and blood. When we have become partakers of Christ’s body and blood, we receive the living giving, sanctifying power of Christ.” The Reformation denied and distorted so much of God's truth - but to be fair to Martin Luther, he always believed in transubstantiation.
The substance of Christ body is made from the substance of whine while the matter and form of bread remains, God can do this because matter is the mainefeatation of causal power that is in its substance via its essence, and because the causal power is proper to God matter is ancedental to its substance, so then God can make the substance (that which communicates what a things is from essence to form) different from the matter
I think the doctrine of transubstantiation is conceptually difficult, and perhaps even misleading, because it depends on an Aristotelian notion of substance which is very metaphysical and likely to be misunderstood by people today. When we hear the word "substance" we tend to think of the material stuff of the thing, so that transubstantiation would imply some chemical or atomic transformation from bread to flesh and from wine to blood. But the Aristotelian notion of substance is more to that which defines the thing formally and essentially, in a manner which to some extent is intellectual and spiritual rather than material.
"So far as the truth of the Holy Eucharist is denied, because it transcends understanding, and seems to be unbelievable, much the more could be denied the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. For these mysteries are incomprehensible, and seem to be more incredible, than the actual presence in the Holy Eucharist. Likewise, nowhere in Sacred Scripture is the Holy Trinity or Incarnation described so plainly and clearly as is the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Out of which follows that if the truth of the Holy Eucharist is beyond belief, then the Holy Trinity is beyond belief, and the Incarnation of Christ also. And if these are all beyond belief, there is almost nothing left to be believed. " -Above is my personal translation of an old commentary I found regarding the orthodox 'confession of Peter Mogila', then Metropolitan of Kiev. First published 1645
Point by point rebuttal to your arguments from Scripture and the church fathers: - 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 - the Eucharistic host is still accidentally bread, although substantially it is only the body and blood of Christ. This is what Paul means by “the bread we break.” Some catholic liturgies to this day (like the Didache) refer to the consecrated host as bread and wine even after the consecration, for this same reason. - St Cyprian on bread and wine representing the blood of Christ - in a catholic view, a sacrament is a sign that is what it represents. So the wine both represents the blood of Christ and is the blood of Christ. - Catholics would also agree that the Eucharist is a spiritual and heavenly pledge, but this does not imply anything one way or another about transubstantiation. - You conveniently left out the first part of the sentence St Ambrose writes on the Eucharist not being bodily food: “In that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual.” The sacrament is spiritual food precisely because it is the Body of Christ, in the sense that Christ nourishes our spirit when he gives his true flesh and blood in the Eucharist. - St Cyril of Jerusalem - the “in the figure of” bread and wine just means the same thing as “in accidental character of” bread and wine, which is fully in line with the catholic understanding of transubstantiation. - You have taken St Augustine’s quote out of context here. He is commenting on John 6:27, which is distinguishing earthly work (for the belly) from spiritual work (for the soul), not arguing against Catholic orthodoxy. Moreover Augustine says in Sermon 234 that “Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ becomes the body of Christ.” This in line with the catholic teaching on transubstantiation, so if your quote did pertain to the Eucharist then Augustine would be contradicting himself.
In the same work "On the Mysteries" 5 paragraphs before this quote from St. Ambrose, "Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body."
"Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed."
Thank you for explaining the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Very helpful. Catholics claim that there have been scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles. Apparently scientific testing revealed that the wafer, after being returned to the Tabernacle, dissolved into AB blood type, which was from a person of Middle East origin, and was someone who was traumatically injured). Do you have any thoughts on this?
IIRC most Catholics and Eastern Orthodox teach that these miracles occur to help or correct a lack of faith in Christs sacrifice. In other words, those miracles happening a few times (if they did happen, neither the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics require belief in such miracles as dogma) does not necessarily imply that the wine always necessarily becomes "AB type blood from a traumatically injured male of Middle Eastern origin". It's interesting to note that pinning down when exactly these miracles occurred (did the wine transform as soon as the priest blessed it, or some time after) is often difficult. I'm just a theology nerd and not a very good one at that, but personally I think that lends credence to the above view that the miracles are more of a one-off for a specific reason then an indication of something that always has to happen. Also interesting to note that in none of the cases I'm aware of, did anyone consume the Eucharist after testing it. Personally, a few sensationalized instances of that miracle occurring sounded fraudulent to me, but I'm willing to believe this has truly happened before.
Thank you for this video. I grew up in the Episcopal Church. Recently, I have been studying other church traditions. At one time, I was strongly considering Catholicism, but the Eucharist is what halted my conversion efforts. I have celiac disease and I am a recovered alcoholic. Therefore, no amount of bread or wine is safe for me. The Episcopal Church allows gluten-free Communion, but the Catholic Church does not. It is hard for me to accept that both elements, which I am bodily intolerant to, will change into another substance that I am not intolerant to. People with celiac have suffered from ingesting the glutenous hosts, and alcoholics have relapsed over the wine. The next church I explore will likely be an ACNA church.
Just FYI, Catholic hosts used for Mass can be very low-gluten that contain a tiny amount of gluten (as little as .01%) to still make them valid. Many persons with celiac disease are able to receive them and it would be a matter of talking to the relevant priest. You can avoid the wine altogether at a Catholic Mass because the host consists not only of the body of Christ, but also his blood - just sayin.... (we know this because of 1 Corinthians 11:27, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”). Of course, a Celiac can receive Communion under the form of taking the sacramental wine only but I appreciate that does not help you, in this case.
@@clivejames5058 The laity doesn't seem to take the wine any more, only the priests do that. A person w/ severe celiac can't even have trace amounts of gluten. If this person is lower sensitivity, that is helpful information that the RCC hosts only contain trace gluten. Thanks for mentioning that.
Hello River, I've been struggling between a pneumatic presence and Lutheran corporeal Sacramental Union although I suppose the former is a more plain interpretation of the Articles. Would you say that Sacramental Union is still a possible view, even if not encouraged? While the ability for many to worship together and share the sacraments is beautiful, the lack of doctrinal unity in Anglicanism has its downsides too
Anglicans need to read John 6 - Jesus' Bread of Life Discourse - Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you, for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
I would be interested in you looking at a video on here and commenting. Look up All Saints Margaret Street celebration for Corpus Christi. This is an Anglo-Catholic church. The homily is delivered by Anglicn priest (the name escapes me) who makes mention of Thomas Cranmer and BCP.
Just trying to discern the differences between different denominations. I am a Catholic and we don’t teach that there is a physical difference in the bread and wine after transubstantiation happens. I didn’t seem to hear anything that contradicts what Catholics believe when I hear the way you describe what the Anglican church teaches. Is this just a distinction without a real difference?
For Anglicans the presence of Christ's body and blood is spiritually found within the hearts of the receivers of the sacramental bread and wine, not locally present in the bread and wine themselves. For Roman Catholics, it is the other way around.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Hey, thanks for the reply. The way you just now described this doesn't seem to match up with what you said at the very outset of your video where you were reading from your 1662 Catechism. Here is what you said: "Anglicans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Lord's supper, the body of Christ is verily, and indeed, taken and received. The presence of Christ is only there in a spiritual and heavenly manner." Is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or just in the hearts of those that receive it? Confused :)
@@newkingdommedia9434 Now you said it another way, lol.... that didn't help clarify. Is Christ present in the Eucharist or in the people? It doesn't make sense to call it the "Real Presence" if you are claiming Christ is not present in the Eucharist. Also goes against John 6.
@@PatrickSteil When I am saying 'Eucharist' I do not mean the elements of bread and wine but the whole celebration itself. The bread and wine become sacraments of Christ's body and blood, to be treated with reverence, but it is only within the receivers' hearts that the real presence is found. This is the teaching of Augustine and we do not see it as contradicting John 6
absence in presence, presence in absence ad infinitum...I think it's better to say * it's a mystery* are there any arguments from experience? Maybe catholics do experience something that non believers (in transubstantion and real presence)don't. Like a close friend telling you that "this really happened to me so it HAS to be true" Who would you believe, the friend or logic?
I have a Catholic friend I often converse/debate with. I attempt to use scripture and early church father writings to point to how I feel Transubstantiation is false, (as well as other doctrines), but he always says in turn to me that; "Catholic sacred oral tradition confirms it to be a true doctrine, even when not in scripture. Oral tradition tells us what scripture really means, and also contains the teachings of the apostles that were never written down anywhere" and that "all the early church fathers are Catholic, therefore, they speak Catholic language, which can only be understood through our tradition". How do you answer that claim? I find it difficult to deal with, because I find it cannot be proven nor disproven (for how does one prove or disprove what one can't see or trace, yet is acclaimed to be passed down generationally without error or corruption?). Do you have an answer to this Catholic defence? To me, I would almost just call it an excuse for Catholics to just say whatever they want, because they can lay claim to "apostolic oral tradition" to cover them from the accusations of "it's not in the Bible". When I try to point to scriptures which Catholic tradition and doctrine seem to completely contradict outright, my Catholic friend will just say "no, that's your incorrect interpretation, you need oral tradition to interpret the Bible correctly and its secret meanings/language, because our oral tradition originated from the apostles and was never meant to be separated from the Bible".
Hello and peace to you my Christian friend. I think I would basically agree with your friend but I wouldn’t just defer to that as my cover argument for everything. I think Catholic apologetic have a great answers for all of the arguments. Specifically on Eucharist and real presence versus transubstantiation. I am trying to research why Catholic adjacent denominations do not believe the same as Catholics. I listened to this video and I don’t think that we actually believe different things. I think we have distinctions without differences here. The Catholic Church does not tease that there is a physical difference when the bread and wine are consecrated into the body and blood of Christ. I think what we have here is just two different traditions explaining the same thing. What’s your take on this?
@@PatrickSteil Hey Patrick. Appreciate the warm introduction. I've looked into the issue in depth as much as I can without bias in scripture. It's my personal view point that I don't subscribe to any "transformative" miracle during communion, at least when it comes to literal flesh and blood. So I have very "protestant" outlook in that regard. That's not to say I can't 100% confirm there is nothing spiritual about the event, Christ said he was present amongst even two or three believers. But as for the bread and wine, I would hold them more as symbols, in regard to remembrance. I did write an article about my thoughts on my website, but I can break down in a list here my end conclusions in short: Arguments FOR: -Jesus said “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” -Jesus said “this is my body, this is my blood” -Jesus never explicitly stated “this symbolises my body and blood” -Sacrifices were eaten by the Hebrews -Jesus is compared to the Passover lamb which was eaten -Jesus blessing the bread and wine can be argued to being similar to him blessing the fish and loaves Arguments AGAINST: -Jesus was well known for speaking in metaphors -Jesus compared feeding on him as Heavenly manna to obeying his teachings -Jesus stated those feeding on him would never hunger or thirst, proving a metaphorical application -Jesus stated “the flesh profits nothing, the things I speak are spiritual” when questioned on eating his flesh and blood -Paul metaphorically compares the participation of the bread and wine of Jesus with the drinking from the spiritual rock in the wilderness -Jesus stated his blood “was” poured out before he was sacrificed at his Supper, proving a future tense application of his words on his blood and body, proving there was no flesh or blood literally present -It is never explicitly stated that Jesus miraculously turned bread to his body, or wine to his blood -All the miracles of Jesus were provable and tangible, Transubstantiation is not -Transubstantiation is not observable in either taste, texture, or chemical composition, and therefore has never been physically witnessed in scripture, nor in the modern day -Both in scripture and in the modern day, people can get drunk on the wine of the Lord’s Supper -Sacrifices are not required to be eaten to be effectual in the Law -The blood of sacrifices were never eaten, and therefore the Lord’s Supper cannot be compared to sacrificial eating of animals -Eating blood is forbidden in the Old Law & Christian Law, of which Jesus never broke -Eating the blood of a sacrifice invalidates that sacrifice according to the Law
Catholic edition of the Bible is full of footnotes explaining what different passages mean and how they should be understood. Even as a young Catholic I used to find it disturbing and somewhat mind controlling. When I decided to read the Bible without the footnotes and with an open heart, I ended up leaving the church.
Something that may help you understand where your Catholic friend is coming from - is that when Christ himself promised his Real Presence in the Eucharist, many of his disciples could not accept it. They were shocked and walked away - “This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?” (John 6:68). Christ never said to them "relax, it's only a symbol". Indeed the Eucharistic miracle is so powerful that the apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”.
@@clivejames5058 I understand these arguments completely and have read them before and discussed them. As I said, I wrote about all of these arguments and perspectives in my article.
Thank you so much! Sir. Excellently explained 👌 I'd like to add two things that got be pondering that the reformed view on the Eucharist is the correct: John 13:27 If the theory of transubstantiation were true, Satan would never have entered Judas' body, for the devil fears The Lord so much; Satan & The Lord can't co-exist sacramentally, right? Moreover, ACTS 2:42 The writer of the acts referred to the Eucharist as ; leaving the impression that our union with The Lord is REAL & but spiritual only.
You’ve hit the nail on the proverbial head when you discuss the divergence of true Christology with transubstantiation. Also check out Theodore Beza’s Treatise on the Lord’s Supper. However I think you’re too soft on the Romanists in that they are committing idolatry and participating in a derogatory rite to Christ’s one complete and finished sacrifice on the cross once for all. The Anglican fathers were adamant about that as were all the reformers Remember, RC’s say the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. Otherwise, brother River, I really admire your zeal and teaching ability.
As a further thought regarding my comment about being soft on the Romanists: remember that a traditional Roman Catholic will not accept your rite of the Lord’s Supper as valid at all. Anglican orders, say they, are utterly void and invalid. Only modernist Romanists disagree with this. Pope Leo was crystal clear about that. And recall that modernist Roman Catholics don’t believe in the uniqueness of Christ as the only way to God. Jews needn’t believe in Jesus to be saved and neither do any other religions so long as the devotees of them are sincere and living up to what they know.
Mks 14:22-24.....he took bread,and after blessing it broke it,and said,"Take;this is my body...And he took the cup.......and said to them,This is my blood of the covenant..... Catholics believe in actual presence of Jesus in Eucharist because Jesus after blessing the( bread and wine) called them his body and blood.He didn't say "take this bread..... "or "take this wine" I believe your quotations are out of context. Check on Eucharistic miracles in the internet and see the many times Catholics had to deal with '"REAL PRESCENCE" AFTER JESUS WITHDREW THE ACCIDENTS.You don't know what you are talking about brother.
Thank you for your work! I was brought up in the Catholic tradition, which I wandered away from in my 20s. I went on a long spiritual search through various philosophies, inside and outside of Christianity. For a long time I had little interest in the Anglican church, because I ignorantly assumed there were little theological difference between the Anglicans and the Catholics. But as I live in England, the Anglican parish is the closest to where I live, I started going there more often and I found it deeply nourishing and healing for my soul. At first Anglicanism was just what was the most convenient and "as good as anything else", but I fell in love with the Anglican way. I'm happy to have found your informative channel and I'm looking forward to learning more about Anglican theology. Thank you 🤗
At 6:30, you imply that the Aristotelian, pagan source of substance/mode ontology is problematic for the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. But you then appeal to Augustine, who was influenced by Plato, who was also a pagan.
Probably the only period where Jesus' body could be multiple places at once was after he resurrected and appeared to people, I say that based on the fact that he could walk through walls... but even then, he went up to heaven, so that period is over now.
I would say that I have been consecrated by Christ - I have said “yes” to Christ and been made holy - sanctified. The Spirit resides in me. However, my DNA remains human and is not the DNA of Christ. I think of the Eucharist in this same way.
In fact the Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their view that the Bread and Cup are unambiguously the body and blood of our Lord - body, blood, soul and divinity. There is no conflict with participation in the body of Christ. A Christian can both partake of Christ's body and be part of his body - the physical body of all living Christians and the mystical body which includes heaven. After all, Christ is in heaven with his fleshly resurrected body! See Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan.
There's no justification for it within our formularies. I see the appeal of it, but it's using the sacrament is a way not instituted by Christ, which in itself should give us pause, and it's also theologically jutified by ROme on the basis of the thoroughly deviant medeival practice of not encouraging the laity to take communion, instead they just watched the consecration and somehow vicariously had the benefits applied to them through ocular means, but without the "risk" of unworthy consumption. This is a peculiar Roman practice (no other Christian group doe this), and I can't think of a justification unless you beleive Rome is infallible so if they allow it it must be okay
@@internetenjoyer1044 On some Anglicans forums I heard it argued that if we acknowledge Christ is really present in the Eucharist, then He deserves worship, regardless of whatever capacity He is present in
@@johna4387 The issue is that if transubstantiation or the Lutheran view (the Lutheran view actually has a strong sense of local presence than transubstatiation, but they dont do adoration outside of the liturgy becuase it wasn't instituted by Christ) isnt true, then Christ isn't present there in a spatial way; he's conjoined to the bread sacramentally insofar as you eat Him when you eat the bread, but you're not looking in His direction when you look at the bread
Some people see it that way, personally I'd describe it as 'the real presence' and leave it at that. In the Liturgy it is clear that when the Priest consecrates the Eucharist a real and objective thing has happened so that the elements of bread and wine are now permanently 'the body and blood' of Christ but the benefits of them are only received by those who do so with faith.
No. The Articles say it is “Given, Taken, and eaten” - how can you give something not truly there? It is a Real Presence with the Elements of bread and wine, after a “spiritual manner” - which is just describing the condition of the Body. It is NOT the Natural Corporeal Body, but the Heavenly supernatural/spiritual Body. It’s in this manner or mode he is there. It’s not local natural flesh, but an illocal Supernatural Presence. Hence the Body and Blood are eaten by faith and the bread and wine are eaten physically. A good way to think about this is the Burning Bush. God was present in a manner that was not physical, but real. The Bush did not change into God, yet God was there.
Your argument needs to be better informed. Not ALL anglicans reject transubstantiation! The attempt to distill a handful of 'core Anglican doctrines' is always going to come unstuck particularly if you argue mainly from the 39 articles. Contemporary Anglicanism encompasses a very broad range of ecclesiologies. Are you reading the leading Anglican theologians of our time - Williams, Avis, Davis and so on? Transubstantation has solid biblical foundation particularly in the Gospel of John as well as the Fathers. And finally, it's not 'our' Eucharist.
Are there any historical facts and scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles in Anglican church? R. Catholic Church have many instances of Eucharistic miracles in whic consecrated bread turned into human flesh and wine into human blood (Blood group AB) . Senses cannit grasp this marvel, faith must serve to compensate. This proves that God approves the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
As the speaker points out, Transubstantiation seems to have been an idea devised by Aquinus. Orthodox don't go into the details. John 6, on the other hand, definitely points to the idea of a Real Presence.
How is it that this new theology on the spiritual vs actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist sprang up in England 1400 years after Christianity arrived there? So for 1400 years the English believed in the literal presence (body blood soul and divinity) of Christ, but then suddenly started to interpret scripture and what the early Church fathers taught differently. Is it just curious coincidence that this change in doctrine happened soon after Henry VIII's disagreement and schism from Rome? This is not a theological issue. It is a confected theological issue masking the real issue, which is purely political. Incidentally, Henry VIII right up until his death insisted on the real literal presence. It was only after he died that revolutionaries led by Cranmer dared to promulgate the new doctrine, using the political situation created by Henry as cover.
"Accidents and Substance" are not much different than "Outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual Grace". What the Church of England rejected was the practice of using the elements as a proxy for Christ. "...The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. (Article 28)"
The 28th article says transubstantiation is "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture". Disbelief in the 39 articles is also not rejected. In fact many Anglicans view it only as a historical document of the church.
@@alfredsturges9015 I was referring to adoration of the Sacrament. That part says it is not in the Scriptures. That is not a condemnation, just a neutral statement.
@@devinlawson2208 you can certainly take it to be neutral. I don't think the authors of the 39 articles felt that way about it though. Archbishop Cranmer wrote the 42 articles that later became the 39 articles. Check out what he wrote for the 30th article, which didn't make the cut for the 39: *Of the Perfect Oblation of Christ Made Upon the Cross.* The offering of Christ made once forever is the perfect redemption, the pacifying of God’s displeasure, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which, it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or sin, were forged fables and dangerous deceits. _In Archbishop Cranmer's view there was nothing in the Sacrament to be adored._ I think it's also worthwhile to highlight the the Black Rubric again. In the 1552 edition of the BCP says in regard to adoration of the Sacrament: "...lest the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood..." . That was probably a compromise position between John Knox and Archbishop Cranmer, with Knox wanting the Lord's Supper to be received sitting, and Cranmer kneeling.
@@alfredsturges9015 I don’t think invoking the personal theological convictions of Cranmer is helpful. The Articles were debated and drafted under Parker. Any of Cranmer’s work has little to no bearing on the English Church as pertains to official doctrine. Only the Convocation of Bishops can do that, and most of those articles were put forth by his own authority, and we now know the convocation never approved them. So with that said, the black rubric was not instituted by any lawful authority. It was never passed by the Convocation and was illegal. Illegal insertions do not constitute the doctrine of the Church. The only approved form of the Rubric was altered drastically to note that it doesn’t adore the bread and wine (duh, nobody says that), and Christ isn’t present Corporally. Well yeah, we don’t adore bread and wine and he isn’t there corporally. We adore the body and blood there spiritually/mystically. Citing the black rubric doesn’t work because it was never approved of by the Anglican Church.
This is very well explained. However 11:35 gives the lie to this logic. If Christ did not become incarnate, God becoming man, but rather human flesh was exulted to divinity, this is simply yet another manifestation of paganism, a man becoming a god. It also completely undermines much of the Old Testament and salvation history’s obvious flow. The entire crux rests in John 1, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” Not “flesh became the Word.”
Luther did not agree with the extra-Calvinisticum because this is a soft Nestorianism. Lutherans do not believe in a change in substance and do not believe in consubstantiation. Lutherans just say that Christ is present in with and under the bread and wine.
You say Anglicans believe in the 'real' presence of Christ in the Eucharist but then go on to say that Christ is only present in a spiritual and heavenly manner. I don't understand....so you're sayin that Christ is nor really present?
Spiritual =/= symbolic or unreal. Angels are spiritual beings and are just as real as you and I are. God Himself is Spirit and is the basis for reality itself. Christ is not *physically* present but is spiritually present and this is real.
How is it difficult to understand? A spiritual presence is still a real presence... just not a physical presence. My soul is only spiritually present in my body and yet its still really present... it's not as though my soul is not present because its not physically present (that would be impossible) It's not complicated at all.
@@Thomas-Purell-Ministry If Christ is spiritually present, which since he is God it must be true, in all things, why would there be a reason for the Eucharist to be so special? What would be the difference between eating normal piece of bread and the Eucharist in terms of this notion of spiritual presence? This is because it is impossible for Christ to be only spiritually present and really present simultaneously. In the following there will be offered a hopefully simple demonstration of this fact. Your soul IS your body. Though it can be separated from the soul at death, the body is the human soul's sole principle of individuation apart from its genus (man), that genus only serving to individuate it from each angel and God and animals etc but not other men, who are only different in body but equal in nature/genus. Thus the body is inseparable from the identity of the human soul. Your soul is, of course, spiritually present in your body but also wholly equal to it in substance. One's body and soul are two differently intelligible aspects of ONE substance. Likewise, the bread, since Christ is fully man and fully divine, with neither nature inseparable from the other, it literally his body. Christ is his body because he is fully man, and thus if Christ is really and literally present, he must therefore have a body. Therefore the eucharist is his body, since Christ is present in its physicality. Therefore the eucharist is only bread in its accidence, not its substance, since for a body of any accidental form to bear Christ, it must be literally his body and not retain its own separate nature, since Christ is his body and thus can only exist in a body that is his own entirely. Now, since Christ is also fully divine, and with the eucharist being his body, and Christ's body being literally Christ, the eucharist must be not only his body (& blood), but also his soul and divinity. I will be praying for you, kind stranger. May God have mercy on you and on all of us. Viva Christo Rey!
@TruLuan I agree. I have come to change my view on the matter as I draw closer to the Orthodox Church, I am realising more and more that protestantism has a lot of false theology and doctrines. Anglicanism is the best of protestantism, but the Orthodox Church has not changed since the apostolic deposit and has accurate theology, practices, dogmas, liturgy, etc. God bless.
He who eats my body and drinks my blood shall have life in him. Sorry but Christ himself calls the Eucharist his body and blood! Read John 6 and it can’t be clearer. Some followers left him because they couldn’t accept this. Are you not doing the same? The R C theology has been around much longer than a king who wanted to get married a few times!
Those who come to Christ will never thirst and never hunger. Coming to Christ, eating, drinking, are all spiritual. You still hunger and thirst after partaking of the Eucharist. The entire chapter of John 6 is about believing on Christ. The people wanted real food, not spiritual. Just follow the argument from verse 1 to the end.
What part of "this is My Body... This is my Blood", wasn't clear? Either you believe to Christ or you don't, as simple as that. I am not interested in what the Anglicans teach (founded 15 centuries after Christ and His Catholic Church by a selfish, proud, adulterous and murderous King), I'm interested in what Christ and His true Church teach. If Christ's presence in the Eucharist were merely 'spiritual', Christ Himself would not have let most of his disciples go before explaining that he was only speaking 'symbolically' of his Body and Blood. Read the whole chapter 6 of the Gospel of John and 1 Corinthians 11:28-29.
Spiritual doesn't mean symbolic. I've made this clear. Anglicans like myself believe that Christ is truly, really, and literally present in the Sacrament and that we eat His flesh and drink His blood. Spiritual just means not physically.
This violates ecclesiology because if Christ's body is only in Heaven then the Church is only in Heaven as the Church is the body of Christ. To say the bread and wine ceases to exist is an over explanation and conjecture to say the Eucharist is not the physical body of Christ is an over explanation and conjecture. Just except that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ in the fullest sense possible.
I reject Calvin on the Eucharist. I also don't believe in a Pneumatic Presence only which is what you're basically saying. I'm not Protestant in any way because the Eastern Churches needed no reform.
You guys did in 1054 though and allow things un-biblical practices such as divorce even outside of adultery, contraception and the inane belief that one must be baptized via triple immersion which would then be admitting that Jesus himself had an invalid baptism.
Your quote of Cyprian saying the cup "represents" the blood of Christ does not prove your point. Something can both be and "represent" something if it actually IS that thing. It would be different if Cyprian had said that the cup ONLY represents the blood of Christ, and nothing more. So your quote is not categorical or unequivocal. Interesting that you wanted to just leave it there and not go further. Why not? Here is Cyprian again...“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and froward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251])
When you took Christ out of the Eucharist you took Christ out of the Church, and Anglicanism suffers as a result. Schism after schism, a church that is more worldly than spiritual, more worldly than biblical. Every other original church believes in the real presence, Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic's, and Orientals, but a few Germans and Swiss got together 1500 years after Christ's death and decided that he isn't capable of weekly miracles. This is why I swam the Tiber, the audacity and lack of authority.
It seems you completely misunderstand spiritual presence, we've not taken Christ out of the Eucharist, He's present in a real way, albeit spiritual, but it's evident that He's not physically present, listen carefully again the the video and this is all clear. There seems to be little to no basis for thinking Christ's actual physical body and blood are present, and that is based on Scripture, Patristics, Tradition, philosophy etc. But much like with Marian dogmas the RC's seem bent on making unbiblical additions. Indulgences spring to mind, or stopping the laity from having access to Scripture for centuries, or burning Christians alive etc... The RC's have many issues that everyone other than RC's spot from a mile off. I've yet to see any valid biblically grounded case for many of these accretions of the RC Church. However I believe those who have genuine faith in Christ are saved regardless of denomination. But I imagine you don't.
@@Thomas-Purell-Ministry Protestants and Orthodox have many issues that everyone else see from a mile off too, what's your point? We don't quite agree for a reason. Christians persecuting each other is nothing exclusive. Anglicans have mistreated Irish Catholics historically too. Bibles used to be handwritten, they were expensive. Would you pass your Bible that would take months to copy to any Tom Dick or Harry? The Printing Press was convenient.
Christ is in the Euchurist as proper to its essence, an essence being the law which a thing acts to, they however work in acedential ways via there causal power, because the causal power is not proper to them but God, and because God gives them form by causal power, said form can be said to be accidental to there essences, and it can be said to be shown in matter which is the attributes of the form. So then when we speak of a thing we speak of what can be said to be its subject, or essence and its accidental properties, i.e. the accidental properties of form and matter which gain what news from their subject and essence, therefore if bread stopes being in its essence, thus non essential to the subject it can be said that it is no longer substantially bread though the form exist in the matter but has nothing to properly give it the existence of bread, so it could be said that is not then true bread only the accidents or appearances of bread, and because accidents are only acedential to their subject God can cause the subject to be the Christ by making his body essential to the subject while the accidents remain unchanged because they do not have to change as aicedential to a subject. So God can do this with no contradiction, this is the Eucharist. When can Christ said to be no longer within the Euchurist: For first we must make a distinction within matter, for one could say that there is formal mater and informal mater; the first being that matter which is proper to a things from, i.e the matter that can be said to be that matter which is known in one's intellect as proper to a certain form, improper matter being that matter which is passed by individual agents. Now one might say that Jesus is in the Euchurist in formal matter because he is known to be in the Euchurist by the intellect and formal matter would seem to be known by the intellect, however formal matters prime place is exercised in the imagination because formal matter is not the knowing of a subject but of the matter that formally represents it, so it can be said to be in the carnal mind. So Christ is only by subject in the bread. So then it can be said that when the formal mater of bread is not able to be known it is not Christ, we must see however that Christ is in every particle, as when the host still is “formally” bread there is the form of bread for the subject of Christ to be under, but when the bread ceases to visibly be bread according to man's senses and Gods intended will(that is it cannot be said to be driven to the end of Eucharistic bread) God wills that Christ no longer be the subject as what matter is left of the bread is not its formal matter and thus is not knowable to man as Eucharistic bread (the euchurist’s formal matter being bred in the from of a host) so then when the bread sense to resemble the proper formal matter of bread Christ is no longer its subject, and because the informal matter, that is physical particles of bread are informal to the form of Eucharistic bread, and Christ is the subject of the formal matter of Eucharistic bread it senses to be Christ. It can also be said that because the bread and wine are not according to the end of the Euchurist they have no proper necessity to still be Christ Now we can draw the analogy to a king, in that all who are of his kingdom are under his reign, so to them all matter according to the form of Eucharistic host under subjugation to the substance of the entire Christ person’s body. Against the Protestants on if the substance of bread remains: An objector would say that the body of Christ is contained within the bread, however transubstantiation entails a whole transformation of the entire substance of bread into the entire subject of Christ. Now there are several ways in which this can be proven The first way: Now we see that at the institution of the eucharist Christ used the room in this, now we see that this predicate is always in reference to the direct substance of a thing, that is to refer to this is X is to reference to its immediate substance, so then we say that the substance of bread does not remain after the institution. For if the body of Christ was among the bread and with its subject, Christ would have said here is my body, as here denotes the existence of one substance with another, so then because he said this is my body it is fitting to suppose that the substance of bread no longer remains to be referred to in very truth, we see also that it was transformed into the body of Christ. Further because to denote a thing reveres to its truest reality, now the true reality of a thing is denoted by its substance as substance is properly called a thing's existence (so to reference to the existence of a thing is to reference too its substance, and to reference to its physical mode of being (via its accidents) is to reference its species, so then to call a thing by its accidental qualities is not to truly call it by name), so we see that existing only to the matter of bread was the substance of Christ body, so we say that after the institution none of the substance of bread remains. So We see that Christ could not have said that this is my body, that the bread by its very being was not fully and substantially transformed into Christ’ body. In this we also delete the views of the Calvinist, wherein we see that if they were correct about the spiritual presence, i.e the substance of bread partaking in the spiritual body of Christ, Christ would have said this bread constitutes my body. Wherefore we distinguish that the substance of bread is made into the substance of Christ's body and thus participates in it, the accidents being subject to Christ’ body. Now we will explore the mode of replacement. The second way: Now we see that a thing can be so were in two ways, the first by being immediately made there by conversion of another thing to it (now we see in this case that this conversion must be in subject, as an accidental conversion would not be a very true conversion), and the second by local motion to being in a place place, now’s the Christ cannot be in the bread by local motion, for what is in local motion is terminated at on end, and ceases to move and becomes at one end, now because Christ body is in heaven local motion would imply that it is no longer in heaven, as motion can not be terminated at two points, for a thing cannot have substance terminated at two points. This further would rule out the possibility that the Euchurist could be in multiple places, as a thing cannot be terminated at two points, so then Christ must be in the Euchurist by substance, and further by transforming an existing substance to become his body. Secondly what moves from local motion passes through intermediate stages, the body of Christ however does not do this, and is in the bread by very true conversion, i.e. because of the words this is my infer a very true being of Christ body and it did not subsequently go through local planes and stop being with the apostles. For there is also the problem of bread, if the body of Christ be moved by local motion then the substance of bread ought to be moved out through localized planes, or it need be destroyed (against the scotist in that the bread’s substance being destroyed would imply the local motion of Christ body). So then only the second mode of moving remains, i.e by conversion of one thing to truly another, and no less in the highest substance, therefore we see that God at an instance transforms (more properly makes) from the substance of bread the substance of his body.
Sorry Anglican ideas about the Eucharist are confused and make no sense! Christ is all present and really present in the All-Holy Mystery of the Eucharist - how it happens is a mystery! This is the Orthodox belief!
If what Jesus said about himself is true.....transubstantiation would be and must be true. You limit God with this evil denial of a difficult teaching. Even Peter did not understand but said" Lord where will we go...you have the words of life." Pray for deliverance from your need to understand the mind of God...seek to love Him as He revealed Himself instead.
Christ saying it is good enough for me. But much earlier fathers would say your teachings are heresy. Christ’s resurrected Body can take any form it wishes. “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
@UC7wR5ESagmTzEyyt115lyZw spatial presence (physicality) is an accidental quality of a substance (for example, you do not cease to be your substance when you grow)...in Roman Dogma there is a substantial presence of Christ, not a physical one, the physical presence is of the remaining accidents of bread and wine
Since in transubstantiation the substance of bread and wine transform into that of flesh and blood it is correct to say that you would be physically eating flesh and physically drinking blood. Yes, the accidents remain unchanged (and I don’t even believe in this substance/accidents distinction) but they are now accidents of flesh and blood. Thus, the substance that you are physically consuming is Christ and He is therefore encountered physically. If the RCC denies this then they are contradicting themselves. This fact can be clearly seen in their practices of adoration directed to the Eucharist elements themselves such as bowing and praying before them and the traditional custom of only receiving the body on the tongue.
When was the LAST SUPPER? Answer= BEFORE the Crucifixion ...... Now think about that and let it sink in. This absolutely proves TRANSUBSTANTIATION is a FALSE teaching as Christ gave this teaching before he was sacrificed. So OBVIOUSLY it has to be symbolic.. However either way it doesn't really matter. It isn't something which one would be condemned for one way or the other.
The eucharist is man made. The context of the last supper wasnt for everyone. It was for christ and the apostles. Do this in remembrance of me was only for the apostles. Whats the difference between transubstantiation? You are doing the same thing. same man made ritual but are pretending your eucharist is different than the Catholic eucharist. There is no scripture that when put in context teach the eucharist. You guys misuse the last supper. Its history. It was an intimate dinner for yhe men who stuck by him. Not for us. He shared the story. Thats it.
@@mpkropf5062 sure ok when did they observe that after Jesus Christ was crucified. How could anyone else besides Jesus say this is my body and blood? How does that work? We all are missionaries. There is no one vicar. 😂 Catholic heresy. It was for the apostles one time deal. The whole rest of the Bible where Jesus Christ said to eat his body and drink his blood is allegorical. There's nowhere else they practice the eucharist. No one else besides the person can take ownership of someone else's body. Immature and cultic.
It's so rare to find Anglican apologetics, the difference between transubstantiation and co-substantiation is very well explained
Thanks for the clear explanation of your arguments.
I share your frustrations. I have noticed that Catholics for example have lots of options when it comes to Apologetics but for some reason it's difficult to find Anglicans in apologetics like our brother in the video.
Maybe someone will come to this comment thread and share recommendations
Having read Scripture Augustine, some of Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and the Easstern Fathers I got exhausted and finally just accepted the 39 Articles as the simple clear basis for dogmatic belief. Still working on the Life in Faith. Keep it up boyo and lead with your left.
That is the most straightforward, clear, and concise explanation I have heard anywhere on RUclips
Thank you!
And furthermore, the ARCIC has agreed that Anglicans and Roman Catholics (as related to the presence) believe the same with different wording and that our views are congruent while being expressed in different forms (of course we have other issues as how the sacrament is exercised i.e. ordination of women) but the matter of the real presence is not a church dividing issue among us.
This!
Sooooo good. I’m seriously considering conservative Anglicanism right now (like Gafcon) and this just makes me swell with joy.
I wish I could find a Gafcon church in my small town in Canada. I researched them online and the first clue was a statement of being inclusive, then a lady in the ministry team, which tends to be a bad sign. Then I found one of the churches put a "happy pride month" notice on their outside message board, that usually rightfully contains a scripture. My heart sank. I guess most of the Anglican churches are gutted now, unless they are Gafcon.
Good stuff! Thank you for creating very good content--explaining the Reformation and Patristic theology we received regarding our Eucharist. Steve+
Thank you!
Your explanation is very much what I was taught as a Presbyterian, a spiritual real presence. I hold to that truth but think communion remains a mystery more easily experienced than defined.
Great video, thank you. As someone who's new to the Anglican tradition, your videos are immensely helpful to me.
I myself an Anglican enjoyed this video. It broadens my mind, Its videos like these that gives one a good understanding of the Eucharist. Thank you
This is my body. This is my blood.
“Drink this, all of you”
Yet Catholics don’t drink wine during communion.
@@alphaepic6335 I’m 99.9% sure they do
@@oneandonlymoth Google search “communion under one kind.” Communion under both kinds requires special permission from a bishop in most countries, and was discouraged post-Reformation because it was seen as “too Protestant.”
@@oneandonlymothlook up “communion under one kind”.
To do “communion under both kinds”, Catholics need special permission from a Bishop.
@@oneandonlymothUnfortunately Catholics do not receive both, only the bread and this is one of the reasons I've been considering Anglo-Catholicism (almost considered Orthodox but they reject the filioque which is biblically evident).
This is best concise video about the Anglican view of the Eucharist ive found thankyou
It is so good to hear young people worshiping God.
Thank you, River. An excellent, simple explanation of our Anglican theology.
Good teaching and excellent historical breakdown. Thank you.
Thank you!
Call it what you will whether it be transubstantiation or whatever but as far as I'm aware the mojority of christians believe in the true (corporal) presence in the Eucharist. That takes in Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, all the Orthodox Churches, Lutherans & most Anglo-Catholic (Anglicans). Any comments please?
This is my body. This is my blood.
@@hosanna_musicI am the door
Yet again, another awesome video. Thank you!!
Thanku so much dear brother...
It's so much helpful for me to understand the Eucharist
Amen. God bless you, and the Anglican Communion.
" Lord Jesus- whatever it is to you, it is to me".
Many thanks for this excellent presentation. As a fellow anglican, I would add that many in the classic tradition also see the eucharist as a memorial presentation of bread and wine in praise and worship to God - this is the "...did command us to continue... a perpetual memory" of the 1662 BCP. Also, it is my understanding that educated Lutherans (e.g. Dr Jordan Cooper) do not use (and in fact would reject) the term "consubtantiation" - I think they would use the term "sacramental union" instead.
You are correct. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union
Genuine question here: You say that there is evidence that the Jews would have rejected transubstantiation if they had known about it but they did - John 6:60 tells us that the Disciples did indeed reject Christ's teaching when they said "this is a hard teaching, who can accept it"? and many walked away. At no point did Christ say "hey, come back, it's only a spiritual symbol". Just wondering, as I'm trying to figure this out, what you think was going on in John 6:60? Many thanks.
Well it's not just a symbol. We do literally, or "verily and indeed" eat His flesh and blood. We just don't do it physically.
Also, part of what is offensive about it is that Christ is implicitly claiming to be God, since it's He Who gives life.
This is my body. This is my blood.
Excellent explanation. Thank you
Very good explanation of Anglican teaching.
Love this ... ❣️
XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
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 it 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 Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ...
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 is Faith.
Jesus Christ teaches, the bread, WHEN BLESSED, " IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@moutonfamily2020 I agree, there is no logic to God! Yes, the same Jesus Christ who walked the earth, was at the same time, He who created the world, for WITH GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE! Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestants add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus Christ! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
One of the problems that I see with the doctrine of transubstantiation is that it is based on Aristotelian metaphysics. Aristotle had no scientific knowledge regarding the nature of matter, so he devised categories based on his subjective reasoning. There is no more scientific basis for understanding matter in terms of substance and accident than there is for believing that disease is caused by a miasma, or that the human body is made up of the four humors of blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile.
The east has always held to the real presence (which in a way may also be called "transubstantiation" in the broader sense of the term, signifying the belief in a physical change) without making use of aristotelian metaphysics and all this talk of accidents and substance. It is simply early church teaching.
@@Bellg I sometimes wonder if, for a modern audience, it would be better to say "ontological change" instead of "physical." Otherwise it seems like you have to get into talk of accidents and substance to explain that "physical" does not mean something reductive and sterile like "the atoms always necessarily rearrange themselves from carbohydrates and glucose into proteins and fat."
Sometimes it feels like everyone is saying the same thing in different centuries language. The Eastern Orthodox confirm the real presence in the language of 800 AD and earlier, the Roman Catholics in the language of 1200 AD and earlier, and the Lutherans/Anglo-Catholics in the language of 1800 AD and earlier.
Anglo-Catholics generally do not reject transubstantiation, or subscribe to the 39 Articles in their entirety; there is not doctrinal uniformity in Anglicanism, which is an ecclesial communion, and not a church with a magisterium to determine doctrine binding on all.
No magisterium in a church that is synodical in nature. We do have the three legged stool of scripture, tradition and reason to determine how doctrine is interpreted and applied so that it can make connections with living in the world today.
I believe in Transubstantiation. I believe Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine when consecrated and this becomes the actual body and blood of Christ.
I don’t understand this doctrine, do Catholics still believe that the wafer is no longer made of carbohydrates, or that the wine is no longer alcoholic?
@@henryc7548 Transubstantiation was always believed by Christians up until the Reformation. Only Catholics and Orthodox still believe that it is a 'Mystery'. We also know from many Early Church Fathers, to take the words of Christ literally in John 6. To name just two - Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, “Now that you have had this teaching and are imbued with surest belief that what seems to be bread is not bread, though it has the taste, but Christ’s body, and what seems to be wine is not wine, even if it appears so to the taste, but Christ’s blood.” Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) wrote `This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood,’ to prevent your thinking that what is seen is a figure; on the contrary what has truly been offered is transformed in a hidden way by the all-powerful God into Christ’s body and blood. When we have become partakers of Christ’s body and blood, we receive the living giving, sanctifying power of Christ.” The Reformation denied and distorted so much of God's truth - but to be fair to Martin Luther, he always believed in transubstantiation.
False teaching would arise and this is a big one
The substance of Christ body is made from the substance of whine while the matter and form of bread remains, God can do this because matter is the mainefeatation of causal power that is in its substance via its essence, and because the causal power is proper to God matter is ancedental to its substance, so then God can make the substance (that which communicates what a things is from essence to form) different from the matter
I think the doctrine of transubstantiation is conceptually difficult, and perhaps even misleading, because it depends on an Aristotelian notion of substance which is very metaphysical and likely to be misunderstood by people today. When we hear the word "substance" we tend to think of the material stuff of the thing, so that transubstantiation would imply some chemical or atomic transformation from bread to flesh and from wine to blood. But the Aristotelian notion of substance is more to that which defines the thing formally and essentially, in a manner which to some extent is intellectual and spiritual rather than material.
"So far as the truth of the Holy Eucharist is denied, because it transcends understanding, and seems to be unbelievable, much the more could be denied the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. For these mysteries are incomprehensible, and seem to be more incredible, than the actual presence in the Holy Eucharist. Likewise, nowhere in Sacred Scripture is the Holy Trinity or Incarnation described so plainly and clearly as is the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Out of which follows that if the truth of the Holy Eucharist is beyond belief, then the Holy Trinity is beyond belief, and the Incarnation of Christ also. And if these are all beyond belief, there is almost nothing left to be believed. "
-Above is my personal translation of an old commentary I found regarding the orthodox 'confession of Peter Mogila', then Metropolitan of Kiev. First published 1645
Point by point rebuttal to your arguments from Scripture and the church fathers:
- 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 - the Eucharistic host is still accidentally bread, although substantially it is only the body and blood of Christ. This is what Paul means by “the bread we break.” Some catholic liturgies to this day (like the Didache) refer to the consecrated host as bread and wine even after the consecration, for this same reason.
- St Cyprian on bread and wine representing the blood of Christ - in a catholic view, a sacrament is a sign that is what it represents. So the wine both represents the blood of Christ and is the blood of Christ.
- Catholics would also agree that the Eucharist is a spiritual and heavenly pledge, but this does not imply anything one way or another about transubstantiation.
- You conveniently left out the first part of the sentence St Ambrose writes on the Eucharist not being bodily food: “In that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual.” The sacrament is spiritual food precisely because it is the Body of Christ, in the sense that Christ nourishes our spirit when he gives his true flesh and blood in the Eucharist.
- St Cyril of Jerusalem - the “in the figure of” bread and wine just means the same thing as “in accidental character of” bread and wine, which is fully in line with the catholic understanding of transubstantiation.
- You have taken St Augustine’s quote out of context here. He is commenting on John 6:27, which is distinguishing earthly work (for the belly) from spiritual work (for the soul), not arguing against Catholic orthodoxy. Moreover Augustine says in Sermon 234 that “Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ becomes the body of Christ.” This in line with the catholic teaching on transubstantiation, so if your quote did pertain to the Eucharist then Augustine would be contradicting himself.
In the same work "On the Mysteries" 5 paragraphs before this quote from St. Ambrose, "Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body."
"Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed."
Thank you for explaining the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Very helpful. Catholics claim that there have been scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles. Apparently scientific testing revealed that the wafer, after being returned to the Tabernacle, dissolved into AB blood type, which was from a person of Middle East origin, and was someone who was traumatically injured). Do you have any thoughts on this?
IIRC most Catholics and Eastern Orthodox teach that these miracles occur to help or correct a lack of faith in Christs sacrifice. In other words, those miracles happening a few times (if they did happen, neither the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics require belief in such miracles as dogma) does not necessarily imply that the wine always necessarily becomes "AB type blood from a traumatically injured male of Middle Eastern origin".
It's interesting to note that pinning down when exactly these miracles occurred (did the wine transform as soon as the priest blessed it, or some time after) is often difficult. I'm just a theology nerd and not a very good one at that, but personally I think that lends credence to the above view that the miracles are more of a one-off for a specific reason then an indication of something that always has to happen. Also interesting to note that in none of the cases I'm aware of, did anyone consume the Eucharist after testing it.
Personally, a few sensationalized instances of that miracle occurring sounded fraudulent to me, but I'm willing to believe this has truly happened before.
What about what Jesus says in John 6 53-58?
Thank you for this video. I grew up in the Episcopal Church. Recently, I have been studying other church traditions. At one time, I was strongly considering Catholicism, but the Eucharist is what halted my conversion efforts. I have celiac disease and I am a recovered alcoholic. Therefore, no amount of bread or wine is safe for me. The Episcopal Church allows gluten-free Communion, but the Catholic Church does not. It is hard for me to accept that both elements, which I am bodily intolerant to, will change into another substance that I am not intolerant to. People with celiac have suffered from ingesting the glutenous hosts, and alcoholics have relapsed over the wine. The next church I explore will likely be an ACNA church.
Just FYI, Catholic hosts used for Mass can be very low-gluten that contain a tiny amount of gluten (as little as .01%) to still make them valid. Many persons with celiac disease are able to receive them and it would be a matter of talking to the relevant priest. You can avoid the wine altogether at a Catholic Mass because the host consists not only of the body of Christ, but also his blood - just sayin.... (we know this because of 1 Corinthians 11:27, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”). Of course, a Celiac can receive Communion under the form of taking the sacramental wine only but I appreciate that does not help you, in this case.
@@clivejames5058 The laity doesn't seem to take the wine any more, only the priests do that. A person w/ severe celiac can't even have trace amounts of gluten. If this person is lower sensitivity, that is helpful information that the RCC hosts only contain trace gluten. Thanks for mentioning that.
Does the Anglican Eucharist have a propitiatory function as a sacrifice for sin? Or is it only a sacrifice of praise?
Hello River, I've been struggling between a pneumatic presence and Lutheran corporeal Sacramental Union although I suppose the former is a more plain interpretation of the Articles. Would you say that Sacramental Union is still a possible view, even if not encouraged?
While the ability for many to worship together and share the sacraments is beautiful, the lack of doctrinal unity in Anglicanism has its downsides too
Barely Protestant and I will be discussing this very thing in a few days time so stay tuned!
The Anglican communion goes agaist Jesus' clear words “Take, eat; this is my body.”
Where can I read the saints teachings
Anglicans need to read John 6 - Jesus' Bread of Life Discourse - Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you, for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
I would be interested in you looking at a video on here and commenting. Look up All Saints Margaret Street celebration for Corpus Christi. This is an Anglo-Catholic church. The homily is delivered by Anglicn priest (the name escapes me) who makes mention of Thomas Cranmer and BCP.
Rev Max Bayliss.
Just trying to discern the differences between different denominations. I am a Catholic and we don’t teach that there is a physical difference in the bread and wine after transubstantiation happens.
I didn’t seem to hear anything that contradicts what Catholics believe when I hear the way you describe what the Anglican church teaches. Is this just a distinction without a real difference?
For Anglicans the presence of Christ's body and blood is spiritually found within the hearts of the receivers of the sacramental bread and wine, not locally present in the bread and wine themselves. For Roman Catholics, it is the other way around.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Hey, thanks for the reply.
The way you just now described this doesn't seem to match up with what you said at the very outset of your video where you were reading from your 1662 Catechism. Here is what you said:
"Anglicans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
In the Lord's supper, the body of Christ is verily, and indeed, taken and received.
The presence of Christ is only there in a spiritual and heavenly manner."
Is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or just in the hearts of those that receive it?
Confused :)
@@PatrickSteil Christ is present in the Eucharist in that while His people take the Eucharist they receive Him in their hearts.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Now you said it another way, lol.... that didn't help clarify. Is Christ present in the Eucharist or in the people? It doesn't make sense to call it the "Real Presence" if you are claiming Christ is not present in the Eucharist. Also goes against John 6.
@@PatrickSteil When I am saying 'Eucharist' I do not mean the elements of bread and wine but the whole celebration itself. The bread and wine become sacraments of Christ's body and blood, to be treated with reverence, but it is only within the receivers' hearts that the real presence is found. This is the teaching of Augustine and we do not see it as contradicting John 6
absence in presence, presence in absence ad infinitum...I think it's better to say * it's a mystery* are there any arguments from experience? Maybe catholics do experience something that non believers (in transubstantion and real presence)don't. Like a close friend telling you that "this really happened to me so it HAS to be true" Who would you believe, the friend or logic?
I have a Catholic friend I often converse/debate with. I attempt to use scripture and early church father writings to point to how I feel Transubstantiation is false, (as well as other doctrines), but he always says in turn to me that;
"Catholic sacred oral tradition confirms it to be a true doctrine, even when not in scripture. Oral tradition tells us what scripture really means, and also contains the teachings of the apostles that were never written down anywhere" and that "all the early church fathers are Catholic, therefore, they speak Catholic language, which can only be understood through our tradition".
How do you answer that claim? I find it difficult to deal with, because I find it cannot be proven nor disproven (for how does one prove or disprove what one can't see or trace, yet is acclaimed to be passed down generationally without error or corruption?). Do you have an answer to this Catholic defence?
To me, I would almost just call it an excuse for Catholics to just say whatever they want, because they can lay claim to "apostolic oral tradition" to cover them from the accusations of "it's not in the Bible".
When I try to point to scriptures which Catholic tradition and doctrine seem to completely contradict outright, my Catholic friend will just say "no, that's your incorrect interpretation, you need oral tradition to interpret the Bible correctly and its secret meanings/language, because our oral tradition originated from the apostles and was never meant to be separated from the Bible".
Hello and peace to you my Christian friend.
I think I would basically agree with your friend but I wouldn’t just defer to that as my cover argument for everything. I think Catholic apologetic have a great answers for all of the arguments.
Specifically on Eucharist and real presence versus transubstantiation. I am trying to research why Catholic adjacent denominations do not believe the same as Catholics.
I listened to this video and I don’t think that we actually believe different things. I think we have distinctions without differences here.
The Catholic Church does not tease that there is a physical difference when the bread and wine are consecrated into the body and blood of Christ.
I think what we have here is just two different traditions explaining the same thing.
What’s your take on this?
@@PatrickSteil Hey Patrick. Appreciate the warm introduction.
I've looked into the issue in depth as much as I can without bias in scripture. It's my personal view point that I don't subscribe to any "transformative" miracle during communion, at least when it comes to literal flesh and blood. So I have very "protestant" outlook in that regard.
That's not to say I can't 100% confirm there is nothing spiritual about the event, Christ said he was present amongst even two or three believers. But as for the bread and wine, I would hold them more as symbols, in regard to remembrance.
I did write an article about my thoughts on my website, but I can break down in a list here my end conclusions in short:
Arguments FOR:
-Jesus said “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”
-Jesus said “this is my body, this is my blood”
-Jesus never explicitly stated “this symbolises my body and blood”
-Sacrifices were eaten by the Hebrews
-Jesus is compared to the Passover lamb which was eaten
-Jesus blessing the bread and wine can be argued to being similar to him blessing the fish and loaves
Arguments AGAINST:
-Jesus was well known for speaking in metaphors
-Jesus compared feeding on him as Heavenly manna to obeying his teachings
-Jesus stated those feeding on him would never hunger or thirst, proving a metaphorical application
-Jesus stated “the flesh profits nothing, the things I speak are spiritual” when questioned on eating his flesh and blood
-Paul metaphorically compares the participation of the bread and wine of Jesus with the drinking from the spiritual rock in the wilderness
-Jesus stated his blood “was” poured out before he was sacrificed at his Supper, proving a future tense application of his words on his blood and body, proving there was no flesh or blood literally present
-It is never explicitly stated that Jesus miraculously turned bread to his body, or wine to his blood
-All the miracles of Jesus were provable and tangible, Transubstantiation is not
-Transubstantiation is not observable in either taste, texture, or chemical composition, and therefore has never been physically witnessed in scripture, nor in the modern day
-Both in scripture and in the modern day, people can get drunk on the wine of the Lord’s Supper
-Sacrifices are not required to be eaten to be effectual in the Law
-The blood of sacrifices were never eaten, and therefore the Lord’s Supper cannot be compared to sacrificial eating of animals
-Eating blood is forbidden in the Old Law & Christian Law, of which Jesus never broke
-Eating the blood of a sacrifice invalidates that sacrifice according to the Law
Catholic edition of the Bible is full of footnotes explaining what different passages mean and how they should be understood. Even as a young Catholic I used to find it disturbing and somewhat mind controlling. When I decided to read the Bible without the footnotes and with an open heart, I ended up leaving the church.
Something that may help you understand where your Catholic friend is coming from - is that when Christ himself promised his Real Presence in the Eucharist, many of his disciples could not accept it. They were shocked and walked away - “This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?” (John 6:68). Christ never said to them "relax, it's only a symbol". Indeed the Eucharistic miracle is so powerful that the apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”.
@@clivejames5058 I understand these arguments completely and have read them before and discussed them.
As I said, I wrote about all of these arguments and perspectives in my article.
Thank you so much! Sir. Excellently explained 👌 I'd like to add two things that got be pondering that the reformed view on the Eucharist is the correct:
John 13:27 If the theory of transubstantiation were true, Satan would never have entered Judas' body, for the devil fears The Lord so much; Satan & The Lord can't co-exist sacramentally, right?
Moreover, ACTS 2:42 The writer of the acts referred to the Eucharist as ; leaving the impression that our union with The Lord is REAL & but spiritual only.
Try telling this to the clergy and parisioners of a church such as All Saints Margaret Street in London.
I suggest you watch Thomas Joseph White O.P. (Aquinas 101) tell me what you think.
You’ve hit the nail on the proverbial head when you discuss the divergence of true Christology with transubstantiation. Also check out Theodore Beza’s Treatise on the Lord’s Supper. However I think you’re too soft on the Romanists in that they are committing idolatry and participating in a derogatory rite to Christ’s one complete and finished sacrifice on the cross once for all. The Anglican fathers were adamant about that as were all the reformers Remember, RC’s say the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. Otherwise, brother River, I really admire your zeal and teaching ability.
As a further thought regarding my comment about being soft on the Romanists: remember that a traditional Roman Catholic will not accept your rite of the Lord’s Supper as valid at all. Anglican orders, say they, are utterly void and invalid. Only modernist Romanists disagree with this. Pope Leo was crystal clear about that. And recall that modernist Roman Catholics don’t believe in the uniqueness of Christ as the only way to God. Jews needn’t believe in Jesus to be saved and neither do any other religions so long as the devotees of them are sincere and living up to what they know.
Thanks for this!
Lol Romanist. That’s funny.
@@molodoychilovek1949 When you refer to Romanists that's an insult...are you going to refer to catholics now as papists.
Mks 14:22-24.....he took bread,and after blessing it broke it,and said,"Take;this is my body...And he took the cup.......and said to them,This is my blood of the covenant..... Catholics believe in actual presence of Jesus in Eucharist because Jesus after blessing the( bread and wine) called them his body and blood.He didn't say "take this bread..... "or "take this wine" I believe your quotations are out of context.
Check on Eucharistic miracles in the internet and see the many times Catholics had to deal with '"REAL PRESCENCE" AFTER JESUS WITHDREW THE ACCIDENTS.You don't know what you are talking about brother.
Thoms Aquinas attempted to amalgamate the teaching of Aristotle with Christianity which was the philosophical zeitgeist.
Thank you for your work!
I was brought up in the Catholic tradition, which I wandered away from in my 20s. I went on a long spiritual search through various philosophies, inside and outside of Christianity. For a long time I had little interest in the Anglican church, because I ignorantly assumed there were little theological difference between the Anglicans and the Catholics.
But as I live in England, the Anglican parish is the closest to where I live, I started going there more often and I found it deeply nourishing and healing for my soul.
At first Anglicanism was just what was the most convenient and "as good as anything else", but I fell in love with the Anglican way. I'm happy to have found your informative channel and I'm looking forward to learning more about Anglican theology. Thank you 🤗
By your title there are many churches.
How many churches did Christ establish?
1 Tim 3:15...The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth
please explain John Chapter 6 to us.
The early church taught transubstantiation without using that word.
At 6:30, you imply that the Aristotelian, pagan source of substance/mode ontology is problematic for the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. But you then appeal to Augustine, who was influenced by Plato, who was also a pagan.
Probably the only period where Jesus' body could be multiple places at once was after he resurrected and appeared to people, I say that based on the fact that he could walk through walls... but even then, he went up to heaven, so that period is over now.
I would say that I have been consecrated by Christ - I have said “yes” to Christ and been made holy - sanctified. The Spirit resides in me. However, my DNA remains human and is not the DNA of Christ. I think of the Eucharist in this same way.
Good analogy!
In fact the Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their view that the Bread and Cup are unambiguously the body and blood of our Lord - body, blood, soul and divinity. There is no conflict with participation in the body of Christ. A Christian can both partake of Christ's body and be part of his body - the physical body of all living Christians and the mystical body which includes heaven. After all, Christ is in heaven with his fleshly resurrected body! See Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan.
So can Anglicans not do Adoration then? I've always grown up doing it, and it is indeed quite shocking to hear otherwise now
There's no justification for it within our formularies. I see the appeal of it, but it's using the sacrament is a way not instituted by Christ, which in itself should give us pause, and it's also theologically jutified by ROme on the basis of the thoroughly deviant medeival practice of not encouraging the laity to take communion, instead they just watched the consecration and somehow vicariously had the benefits applied to them through ocular means, but without the "risk" of unworthy consumption. This is a peculiar Roman practice (no other Christian group doe this), and I can't think of a justification unless you beleive Rome is infallible so if they allow it it must be okay
@@internetenjoyer1044 On some Anglicans forums I heard it argued that if we acknowledge Christ is really present in the Eucharist, then He deserves worship, regardless of whatever capacity He is present in
@@johna4387 The issue is that if transubstantiation or the Lutheran view (the Lutheran view actually has a strong sense of local presence than transubstatiation, but they dont do adoration outside of the liturgy becuase it wasn't instituted by Christ) isnt true, then Christ isn't present there in a spatial way; he's conjoined to the bread sacramentally insofar as you eat Him when you eat the bread, but you're not looking in His direction when you look at the bread
Is this technically a receptionist viewpoint or is there difference?
Some people see it that way, personally I'd describe it as 'the real presence' and leave it at that. In the Liturgy it is clear that when the Priest consecrates the Eucharist a real and objective thing has happened so that the elements of bread and wine are now permanently 'the body and blood' of Christ but the benefits of them are only received by those who do so with faith.
No. The Articles say it is “Given, Taken, and eaten” - how can you give something not truly there? It is a Real Presence with the Elements of bread and wine, after a “spiritual manner” - which is just describing the condition of the Body. It is NOT the Natural Corporeal Body, but the Heavenly supernatural/spiritual Body. It’s in this manner or mode he is there. It’s not local natural flesh, but an illocal Supernatural Presence. Hence the Body and Blood are eaten by faith and the bread and wine are eaten physically. A good way to think about this is the Burning Bush. God was present in a manner that was not physical, but real. The Bush did not change into God, yet God was there.
Your argument needs to be better informed. Not ALL anglicans reject transubstantiation! The attempt to distill a handful of 'core Anglican doctrines' is always going to come unstuck particularly if you argue mainly from the 39 articles. Contemporary Anglicanism encompasses a very broad range of ecclesiologies. Are you reading the leading Anglican theologians of our time - Williams, Avis, Davis and so on? Transubstantation has solid biblical foundation particularly in the Gospel of John as well as the Fathers. And finally, it's not 'our' Eucharist.
Are there any historical facts and scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles in Anglican church?
R. Catholic Church have many instances of Eucharistic miracles in whic consecrated bread turned into human flesh and wine into human blood (Blood group AB) . Senses cannit grasp this marvel, faith must serve to compensate. This proves that God approves the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
As the speaker points out, Transubstantiation seems to have been an idea devised by Aquinus. Orthodox don't go into the details. John 6, on the other hand, definitely points to the idea of a Real Presence.
The Anglican communion is a broad church. There'd be some transubstantiationist among us.
How is it that this new theology on the spiritual vs actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist sprang up in England 1400 years after Christianity arrived there? So for 1400 years the English believed in the literal presence (body blood soul and divinity) of Christ, but then suddenly started to interpret scripture and what the early Church fathers taught differently. Is it just curious coincidence that this change in doctrine happened soon after Henry VIII's disagreement and schism from Rome? This is not a theological issue. It is a confected theological issue masking the real issue, which is purely political. Incidentally, Henry VIII right up until his death insisted on the real literal presence. It was only after he died that revolutionaries led by Cranmer dared to promulgate the new doctrine, using the political situation created by Henry as cover.
@@michellebmouton Codswallop!
@@michellebmoutonWaldensians, Claudius of Turin and some others
To me, the bread and wine bocome vessels of Christ's body and blood.
"Accidents and Substance" are not much different than "Outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual Grace". What the Church of England rejected was the practice of using the elements as a proxy for Christ. "...The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. (Article 28)"
Even that was not rejected. It just says it’s not found in scripture. It never says it’s forbidden, just not found in scripture.
The 28th article says transubstantiation is "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture". Disbelief in the 39 articles is also not rejected. In fact many Anglicans view it only as a historical document of the church.
@@alfredsturges9015 I was referring to adoration of the Sacrament. That part says it is not in the Scriptures. That is not a condemnation, just a neutral statement.
@@devinlawson2208 you can certainly take it to be neutral. I don't think the authors of the 39 articles felt that way about it though.
Archbishop Cranmer wrote the 42 articles that later became the 39 articles. Check out what he wrote for the 30th article, which didn't make the cut for the 39:
*Of the Perfect Oblation of Christ Made Upon the Cross.*
The offering of Christ made once forever is the perfect redemption, the pacifying of God’s displeasure, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which, it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or sin, were forged fables and dangerous deceits.
_In Archbishop Cranmer's view there was nothing in the Sacrament to be adored._
I think it's also worthwhile to highlight the the Black Rubric again. In the 1552 edition of the BCP says in regard to adoration of the Sacrament: "...lest the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood..."
. That was probably a compromise position between John Knox and Archbishop Cranmer, with Knox wanting the Lord's Supper to be received sitting, and Cranmer kneeling.
@@alfredsturges9015 I don’t think invoking the personal theological convictions of Cranmer is helpful. The Articles were debated and drafted under Parker. Any of Cranmer’s work has little to no bearing on the English Church as pertains to official doctrine. Only the Convocation of Bishops can do that, and most of those articles were put forth by his own authority, and we now know the convocation never approved them. So with that said, the black rubric was not instituted by any lawful authority. It was never passed by the Convocation and was illegal. Illegal insertions do not constitute the doctrine of the Church. The only approved form of the Rubric was altered drastically to note that it doesn’t adore the bread and wine (duh, nobody says that), and Christ isn’t present Corporally. Well yeah, we don’t adore bread and wine and he isn’t there corporally. We adore the body and blood there spiritually/mystically. Citing the black rubric doesn’t work because it was never approved of by the Anglican Church.
So real does not mean corporal....I don't understand?
This is very well explained. However 11:35 gives the lie to this logic. If Christ did not become incarnate, God becoming man, but rather human flesh was exulted to divinity, this is simply yet another manifestation of paganism, a man becoming a god. It also completely undermines much of the Old Testament and salvation history’s obvious flow.
The entire crux rests in John 1, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” Not “flesh became the Word.”
Luther did not agree with the extra-Calvinisticum because this is a soft Nestorianism. Lutherans do not believe in a change in substance and do not believe in consubstantiation. Lutherans just say that Christ is present in with and under the bread and wine.
You say Anglicans believe in the 'real' presence of Christ in the Eucharist but then go on to say that Christ is only present in a spiritual and heavenly manner. I don't understand....so you're sayin that Christ is nor really present?
Spiritual =/= symbolic or unreal.
Angels are spiritual beings and are just as real as you and I are. God Himself is Spirit and is the basis for reality itself. Christ is not *physically* present but is spiritually present and this is real.
How is it difficult to understand? A spiritual presence is still a real presence... just not a physical presence.
My soul is only spiritually present in my body and yet its still really present... it's not as though my soul is not present because its not physically present (that would be impossible)
It's not complicated at all.
@@Thomas-Purell-Ministry If Christ is spiritually present, which since he is God it must be true, in all things, why would there be a reason for the Eucharist to be so special? What would be the difference between eating normal piece of bread and the Eucharist in terms of this notion of spiritual presence? This is because it is impossible for Christ to be only spiritually present and really present simultaneously. In the following there will be offered a hopefully simple demonstration of this fact.
Your soul IS your body. Though it can be separated from the soul at death, the body is the human soul's sole principle of individuation apart from its genus (man), that genus only serving to individuate it from each angel and God and animals etc but not other men, who are only different in body but equal in nature/genus. Thus the body is inseparable from the identity of the human soul. Your soul is, of course, spiritually present in your body but also wholly equal to it in substance. One's body and soul are two differently intelligible aspects of ONE substance. Likewise, the bread, since Christ is fully man and fully divine, with neither nature inseparable from the other, it literally his body. Christ is his body because he is fully man, and thus if Christ is really and literally present, he must therefore have a body. Therefore the eucharist is his body, since Christ is present in its physicality. Therefore the eucharist is only bread in its accidence, not its substance, since for a body of any accidental form to bear Christ, it must be literally his body and not retain its own separate nature, since Christ is his body and thus can only exist in a body that is his own entirely. Now, since Christ is also fully divine, and with the eucharist being his body, and Christ's body being literally Christ, the eucharist must be not only his body (& blood), but also his soul and divinity.
I will be praying for you, kind stranger. May God have mercy on you and on all of us. Viva Christo Rey!
@@Thomas-Purell-MinistryYea but Jesus literally calls it his Flesh and Blood in John 6. If it was his spiritual body it wouldn't be Flesh and Blood.
@TruLuan I agree. I have come to change my view on the matter as I draw closer to the Orthodox Church, I am realising more and more that protestantism has a lot of false theology and doctrines. Anglicanism is the best of protestantism, but the Orthodox Church has not changed since the apostolic deposit and has accurate theology, practices, dogmas, liturgy, etc.
God bless.
He who eats my body and drinks my blood shall have life in him. Sorry but Christ himself calls the Eucharist his body and blood!
Read John 6 and it can’t be clearer. Some followers left him because they couldn’t accept this. Are you not doing the same? The R C theology has been around much longer than a king who wanted to get married a few times!
Those who come to Christ will never thirst and never hunger. Coming to Christ, eating, drinking, are all spiritual. You still hunger and thirst after partaking of the Eucharist. The entire chapter of John 6 is about believing on Christ. The people wanted real food, not spiritual. Just follow the argument from verse 1 to the end.
What part of "this is My Body... This is my Blood", wasn't clear? Either you believe to Christ or you don't, as simple as that. I am not interested in what the Anglicans teach (founded 15 centuries after Christ and His Catholic Church by a selfish, proud, adulterous and murderous King), I'm interested in what Christ and His true Church teach. If Christ's presence in the Eucharist were merely 'spiritual', Christ Himself would not have let most of his disciples go before explaining that he was only speaking 'symbolically' of his Body and Blood. Read the whole chapter 6 of the Gospel of John and 1 Corinthians 11:28-29.
Spiritual doesn't mean symbolic. I've made this clear. Anglicans like myself believe that Christ is truly, really, and literally present in the Sacrament and that we eat His flesh and drink His blood. Spiritual just means not physically.
@@newkingdommedia9434You should look at the Eucharistic miracles that have happened in the RCC. It's hard to deny transubstantiation my friend.
This violates ecclesiology because if Christ's body is only in Heaven then the Church is only in Heaven as the Church is the body of Christ. To say the bread and wine ceases to exist is an over explanation and conjecture to say the Eucharist is not the physical body of Christ is an over explanation and conjecture. Just except that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ in the fullest sense possible.
Sort of wild to believe in so many miracles and then just stop at the blood and body of Christ.
I reject Calvin on the Eucharist. I also don't believe in a Pneumatic Presence only which is what you're basically saying. I'm not Protestant in any way because the Eastern Churches needed no reform.
You guys did in 1054 though and allow things un-biblical practices such as divorce even outside of adultery, contraception and the inane belief that one must be baptized via triple immersion which would then be admitting that Jesus himself had an invalid baptism.
SO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH,COPTIC AND ORIENTAL CHURCHES ARE ALSO WRONG...YOUR CRAZY DUDE....
Your quote of Cyprian saying the cup "represents" the blood of Christ does not prove your point. Something can both be and "represent" something if it actually IS that thing. It would be different if Cyprian had said that the cup ONLY represents the blood of Christ, and nothing more. So your quote is not categorical or unequivocal. Interesting that you wanted to just leave it there and not go further. Why not? Here is Cyprian again...“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and froward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251])
When you took Christ out of the Eucharist you took Christ out of the Church, and Anglicanism suffers as a result. Schism after schism, a church that is more worldly than spiritual, more worldly than biblical. Every other original church believes in the real presence, Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic's, and Orientals, but a few Germans and Swiss got together 1500 years after Christ's death and decided that he isn't capable of weekly miracles. This is why I swam the Tiber, the audacity and lack of authority.
It seems you completely misunderstand spiritual presence, we've not taken Christ out of the Eucharist, He's present in a real way, albeit spiritual, but it's evident that He's not physically present, listen carefully again the the video and this is all clear. There seems to be little to no basis for thinking Christ's actual physical body and blood are present, and that is based on Scripture, Patristics, Tradition, philosophy etc.
But much like with Marian dogmas the RC's seem bent on making unbiblical additions. Indulgences spring to mind, or stopping the laity from having access to Scripture for centuries, or burning Christians alive etc...
The RC's have many issues that everyone other than RC's spot from a mile off. I've yet to see any valid biblically grounded case for many of these accretions of the RC Church.
However I believe those who have genuine faith in Christ are saved regardless of denomination. But I imagine you don't.
@@Thomas-Purell-Ministry Protestants and Orthodox have many issues that everyone else see from a mile off too, what's your point? We don't quite agree for a reason.
Christians persecuting each other is nothing exclusive. Anglicans have mistreated Irish Catholics historically too.
Bibles used to be handwritten, they were expensive. Would you pass your Bible that would take months to copy to any Tom Dick or Harry? The Printing Press was convenient.
Christ is in the Euchurist as proper to its essence, an essence being the law which a thing acts to, they however work in acedential ways via there causal power, because the causal power is not proper to them but God, and because God gives them form by causal power, said form can be said to be accidental to there essences, and it can be said to be shown in matter which is the attributes of the form. So then when we speak of a thing we speak of what can be said to be its subject, or essence and its accidental properties, i.e. the accidental properties of form and matter which gain what news from their subject and essence, therefore if bread stopes being in its essence, thus non essential to the subject it can be said that it is no longer substantially bread though the form exist in the matter but has nothing to properly give it the existence of bread, so it could be said that is not then true bread only the accidents or appearances of bread, and because accidents are only acedential to their subject God can cause the subject to be the Christ by making his body essential to the subject while the accidents remain unchanged because they do not have to change as aicedential to a subject. So God can do this with no contradiction, this is the Eucharist.
When can Christ said to be no longer within the Euchurist:
For first we must make a distinction within matter, for one could say that there is formal mater and informal mater; the first being that matter which is proper to a things from, i.e the matter that can be said to be that matter which is known in one's intellect as proper to a certain form, improper matter being that matter which is passed by individual agents. Now one might say that Jesus is in the Euchurist in formal matter because he is known to be in the Euchurist by the intellect and formal matter would seem to be known by the intellect, however formal matters prime place is exercised in the imagination because formal matter is not the knowing of a subject but of the matter that formally represents it, so it can be said to be in the carnal mind. So Christ is only by subject in the bread.
So then it can be said that when the formal mater of bread is not able to be known it is not Christ, we must see however that Christ is in every particle, as when the host still is “formally” bread there is the form of bread for the subject of Christ to be under, but when the bread ceases to visibly be bread according to man's senses and Gods intended will(that is it cannot be said to be driven to the end of Eucharistic bread) God wills that Christ no longer be the subject as what matter is left of the bread is not its formal matter and thus is not knowable to man as Eucharistic bread (the euchurist’s formal matter being bred in the from of a host) so then when the bread sense to resemble the proper formal matter of bread Christ is no longer its subject, and because the informal matter, that is physical particles of bread are informal to the form of Eucharistic bread, and Christ is the subject of the formal matter of Eucharistic bread it senses to be Christ.
It can also be said that because the bread and wine are not according to the end of the Euchurist they have no proper necessity to still be Christ
Now we can draw the analogy to a king, in that all who are of his kingdom are under his reign, so to them all matter according to the form of Eucharistic host under subjugation to the substance of the entire Christ person’s body.
Against the Protestants on if the substance of bread remains:
An objector would say that the body of Christ is contained within the bread, however transubstantiation entails a whole transformation of the entire substance of bread into the entire subject of Christ. Now there are several ways in which this can be proven
The first way:
Now we see that at the institution of the eucharist Christ used the room in this, now we see that this predicate is always in reference to the direct substance of a thing, that is to refer to this is X is to reference to its immediate substance, so then we say that the substance of bread does not remain after the institution. For if the body of Christ was among the bread and with its subject, Christ would have said here is my body, as here denotes the existence of one substance with another, so then because he said this is my body it is fitting to suppose that the substance of bread no longer remains to be referred to in very truth, we see also that it was transformed into the body of Christ.
Further because to denote a thing reveres to its truest reality, now the true reality of a thing is denoted by its substance as substance is properly called a thing's existence (so to reference to the existence of a thing is to reference too its substance, and to reference to its physical mode of being (via its accidents) is to reference its species, so then to call a thing by its accidental qualities is not to truly call it by name), so we see that existing only to the matter of bread was the substance of Christ body, so we say that after the institution none of the substance of bread remains. So We see that Christ could not have said that this is my body, that the bread by its very being was not fully and substantially transformed into Christ’ body.
In this we also delete the views of the Calvinist, wherein we see that if they were correct about the spiritual presence, i.e the substance of bread partaking in the spiritual body of Christ, Christ would have said this bread constitutes my body. Wherefore we distinguish that the substance of bread is made into the substance of Christ's body and thus participates in it, the accidents being subject to Christ’ body.
Now we will explore the mode of replacement.
The second way:
Now we see that a thing can be so were in two ways, the first by being immediately made there by conversion of another thing to it (now we see in this case that this conversion must be in subject, as an accidental conversion would not be a very true conversion), and the second by local motion to being in a place place, now’s the Christ cannot be in the bread by local motion, for what is in local motion is terminated at on end, and ceases to move and becomes at one end, now because Christ body is in heaven local motion would imply that it is no longer in heaven, as motion can not be terminated at two points, for a thing cannot have substance terminated at two points. This further would rule out the possibility that the Euchurist could be in multiple places, as a thing cannot be terminated at two points, so then Christ must be in the Euchurist by substance, and further by transforming an existing substance to become his body. Secondly what moves from local motion passes through intermediate stages, the body of Christ however does not do this, and is in the bread by very true conversion, i.e. because of the words this is my infer a very true being of Christ body and it did not subsequently go through local planes and stop being with the apostles. For there is also the problem of bread, if the body of Christ be moved by local motion then the substance of bread ought to be moved out through localized planes, or it need be destroyed (against the scotist in that the bread’s substance being destroyed would imply the local motion of Christ body). So then only the second mode of moving remains, i.e by conversion of one thing to truly another, and no less in the highest substance, therefore we see that God at an instance transforms (more properly makes) from the substance of bread the substance of his body.
Sorry Anglican ideas about the Eucharist are confused and make no sense! Christ is all present and really present in the All-Holy Mystery of the Eucharist - how it happens is a mystery! This is the Orthodox belief!
Oh no, more heresies is not Anglican a new religion . There is only one true church and it's catholic
It's simple, because they are wrong, and their "eucharists" are invalid as per Apostolicae curae of Pope Leo XIII.
If what Jesus said about himself is true.....transubstantiation would be and must be true. You limit God with this evil denial of a difficult teaching. Even Peter did not understand but said" Lord where will we go...you have the words of life." Pray for deliverance from your need to understand the mind of God...seek to love Him as He revealed Himself instead.
Christ saying it is good enough for me. But much earlier fathers would say your teachings are heresy. Christ’s resurrected Body can take any form it wishes.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Heresy!
Nobody believes in a corporeal presence in the Eucharist, Rome does not affirm a local presence in the supper...this is a strawman.
@UC7wR5ESagmTzEyyt115lyZw spatial presence (physicality) is an accidental quality of a substance (for example, you do not cease to be your substance when you grow)...in Roman Dogma there is a substantial presence of Christ, not a physical one, the physical presence is of the remaining accidents of bread and wine
Since in transubstantiation the substance of bread and wine transform into that of flesh and blood it is correct to say that you would be physically eating flesh and physically drinking blood. Yes, the accidents remain unchanged (and I don’t even believe in this substance/accidents distinction) but they are now accidents of flesh and blood. Thus, the substance that you are physically consuming is Christ and He is therefore encountered physically. If the RCC denies this then they are contradicting themselves. This fact can be clearly seen in their practices of adoration directed to the Eucharist elements themselves such as bowing and praying before them and the traditional custom of only receiving the body on the tongue.
When was the LAST SUPPER? Answer= BEFORE the Crucifixion ...... Now think about that and let it sink in. This absolutely proves TRANSUBSTANTIATION is a FALSE teaching as Christ gave this teaching before he was sacrificed. So OBVIOUSLY it has to be symbolic.. However either way it doesn't really matter. It isn't something which one would be condemned for one way or the other.
The eucharist is man made. The context of the last supper wasnt for everyone. It was for christ and the apostles. Do this in remembrance of me was only for the apostles. Whats the difference between transubstantiation? You are doing the same thing. same man made ritual but are pretending your eucharist is different than the Catholic eucharist. There is no scripture that when put in context teach the eucharist. You guys misuse the last supper. Its history. It was an intimate dinner for yhe men who stuck by him. Not for us. He shared the story. Thats it.
John 6: 51-58 Bible never says it was only for disciples that is false doctrine of denominations !!
@@mpkropf5062 sure ok when did they observe that after Jesus Christ was crucified. How could anyone else besides Jesus say this is my body and blood? How does that work? We all are missionaries. There is no one vicar. 😂 Catholic heresy. It was for the apostles one time deal. The whole rest of the Bible where Jesus Christ said to eat his body and drink his blood is allegorical. There's nowhere else they practice the eucharist. No one else besides the person can take ownership of someone else's body. Immature and cultic.
How about Eucharistic miracules
This is my body. This is my blood.
An yet a few moments later He calls it bread and fruit juice