I Just Had An Interesting Conversation

[phatcatholic]

Ellinita,

thank you so much for your input! you are definitely a resource for me, considering that you grew up in this background. actually, i have a question for you. can you explain to me how anglicans understand the real presence and how this differs w/ the catholic understanding? this anglican speaker who has a doctorate in theology was fumbling over his words in his attempt to explain it to me, so don't worry if u are unable to as well.

thanks again for ur input,

phatcatholic

[Laudate_Dominum]

I hope the Anglican church has a schism between the so called "liberals" and "conservatives" and that the more orthodox side becomes in union with Rome. The liberals can "ordain" gay, transvestite buddhists into their clergy for all I care (and don't be surprised if they do!). Modernist, heretical "christianity" is going to die someday. Everything dies. But Christ has promised that His Church will endure.

[Ellenita]

Phatcatholic, I think Bro Adam has very eloquently explained the difference in a thread somewhere in the debate forum on communion.

There is an understanding that the Presence of God is in the communion but not that the bread and wine turn into His body and blood. From a personal point of view, I always felt the presence of God in a more real way at a 'high' anglican service than in other protestant communion services which viewed communion as a 'symbolic act' in memory of Jesus and the Last Supper. That is not to diminish in any way the intentions of the good people within those protestant churches concerning their communion services! I certainly never experienced any protestant communuion services such as have been described at Phatmass using crackers and fizzy drinks etc. All the communion services I have ever attended in a number of different denominations have always been respectful and mindful of what it symbolises - though I accept of course that this may be a cultural thing....we are traditionally more reserved in the UK!

From my (rather old! ) book of devotion and duty for members of the anglican church:

'Holy Communion is the Sacrament in which according to Christ's command, we make continual remembrance of His sacrifice, death and resurrection until His coming again, and in which we thankfully receive the benefits He gives us. It is therefore, called the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and also the Lord's Supper, the meal of fellowship which unites us to Christ and to the whole church.

The Eucharist or Holy Communion is the way in which we commemorate before God Christ's redeeming, sacrificial death, and also the means whereby we partake of His divine nature for the strengthening and renewing of our spiritual powers. It is at once a memorial and effective offering which we make as we plead for forgiveness before the throne of grace, and a family meal whereby we express our fellowship (communion) with each other in Christ.'

[phatcatholic]

ellenita,

thanks for the reply

i am aware of bro adam's post. unfortunately, it doesn't help when attempting to categorize anglicans. its as if they believe in the real presence (as catholics do)..........but not quite. for some reason, this guy refused to use the word "transubstantiation" but he also rejected the idea that it was only a spiritual presence.

who knows.....it probably just requires more research on my part.

thanks for ur help,

phatcatholic

ps: what was it that helped u decide to leave anglicanism for catholicism? (if u don't mind me asking )

[Ellenita]

Phatcatholic, it is confusing!

I was always taught that there was Presence but not 'transubstantiation'.

I suspect the confusion is founded in the origins of the anglican church which is somewhat unique compared to other protestant denominations in that it didn't split from the catholic church through conviction that the catholic church was 'wrong' in her doctrine! I am not convinced that the high anglican branch has ever truely reconciled itself to this either, hence the reason why people within this branch of the anglican church often call themselves 'anglo catholic' and much of the mass is similar.

I think the persecution of catholics under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I must have been very great in England, though it's not recorded as such in our history. (Some of this would have undoubtedly been for political reasons - the expansion of the empire and catholic countries such as Spain and France being seen as very real threats to this for example). It's highly likely that churches/religious orders/families were forced to become anglican, and then this was reinforced during the civil war when churches and religious symbols were torn down - it is rare to see statues of saints in anglican churches for example.

My decision to leave the anglican church had nothing to do with the recent controversies over the ordination of women or the gay bishop, though I understand this is the reason why many people are leaving. In my case it began with concern that Charles, if he becomes King, who will be the head of the anglican church (though not in the same role as the Pope), wants to be known as 'defender of the faiths', not 'defender of the faith' at his coronation, and I did not want to be in a church where the head could not take a clear stand on Christianity - Charles is reportedly very interested in Islam and I suspect had he been free to do so may well have explored this religion on a more personal level. Of course, as an anglican I had been taught that defender of the faith meant Christianity and the anglican church, though I now know that actually no British monarch has the right to continue to use that title as it was originally conferred on Henry VIII by the Pope as a result of Henry's stand against Luther.....Henry decided to retain the title after he 'fell out' with the Pope and it remains at the coronation of all British monarchs to the present day.

Then I started to understand about apostolic succession......then who wrote the books of the bible.......

Transubstantiation is quite a jump in understanding for protestants who convert isn't it? I'm still wrestling with it alittle, though undoubtedly feel the Presence of God in a very real way at Mass and have an acute awareness of my own sin in a way that I have not experienced before.

[phatcatholic]

Ellenita,

ur testimony was very helpful. thank you! please pray for my ex-girlfriend, who is seriously considering becoming a member of the anglican church herself.

i pray every day that Our Lord will draw her to His Church, as He has done w/ you.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Ellenita]

Phatcatholic,

Karl Keating has written a good explanation:

'Consubstantiation is the belief, held by some protestants, particularly Lutherans and Anglicans, that in the Eucharist, after the consecration, the substances of both the body and the blood of Christ and of bread and wine remain. the body and blood are "with the substance" of the bread and wine, sitting right next to them so to speak.......Consubstantiation means the Eucharist consists of the body and blood of Christ, plus the bread and wine........While consubstantiation affirms a real presence of Jesus, only transubstantiation does justice to the biblical teaching regarding Christ's presence as well as the tradition and practice of the early Church regarding the Eucharist. This teaching comes from the Bible (Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:19-20, Jn 6:32-71, I Cor 10:16-17, I Cor 11:23-29) and from early Christian writers. Cyril of Jerusalem, in writing his Catechetical Discourses around AD 350, said that communicants should be "fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so". He could not affirm this belief if any bread or wine remained after the consecration.'

I will of course pray for your ex girlfriend. You should ask her to check out the origins of the anglican church. There is no escaping the fact that it was founded on the basis of sin. Henry did not break with the catholic church because of religious conviction, it was because he wanted to legitimise his adultery, and Elizabeth I had to formalise the break otherwise technically her right to the throne could be declared null and void - illegitimate children are not allowed to succeed to the throne.

Although not having the same role as the Pope within the church hierarchy, Charles when he becomes king will be known as 'head of the church' and will influence the direction it takes through his appointment of the Archbishop of Canturbury. Charles of course has openly admitted adultery with a married woman while he was married to Diana. Although now both divorced, they are currently living together, not married. This clearly poses a dilemma for the anglican church which it has to resolve if it's not to unravel even further!

In it's desire to please everyone, the synod takes no firm stand on anything....

Why would your ex girlfriend want a poor reflection when she could have the rich beauty of the real thing?!

[cmotherofpirl]

Where did you find the quote from Karl Keating?

[Ellenita]

Oooops! Sorry. Should have put the reference!

It's from 'What Catholics Really Believe: 52 Answers to Common Misconceptions about the Catholic Faith'

It's quite a good little book - short snappy references to the most commonly asked questions and a lot lighter than 'Catholicism for Dummies' to carry around!

Of course I'm assuming he is orthodox and I don't really know since I've never read any of his stuff before, though I'm sure someone at PM will put me right if not! He certainly represents the difference between anglican and catholic understanding of the Eucharist well.

[phatcatholic]

but, the thing is, i straight up asked this anglican speaker if he believed in consubstantiation, and he said no.

so, who knows.

maybe they are just as confused as i am!

[Ellenita]

Anglican speaker or anglican priest? I wouldn't have known what you were talking about if you asked me if believed in consubstantiation either - I've only come to know the word since I began to learn about the difference between protestant and catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Though one would expect a priest to be familiar with the word!

I wonder if 'low' anglicans have a different understanding too - more in line with the 'symbolic' view of communion? It is possible - anything is possible in the anglican church these days!

Of course if he was a 'high' anglican priest you might just have nudged him one step further towards the catholic church, Phatcatholic! :D

[cmotherofpirl]

Karl Keating is wonderful.

See if you can find anything by Peter Kreeft as well. He writes in the style of the great C.S.Lewis.

[phatcatholic]

Anglican speaker or anglican priest? I wouldn't have known what you were talking about if you asked me if believed in consubstantiation either - I've only come to know the word since I began to learn about the difference between protestant and catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Though one would expect a priest to be familiar with the word!

I wonder if 'low' anglicans have a different understanding too - more in line with the 'symbolic' view of communion? It is possible - anything is possible in the anglican church these days!

Of course if he was a 'high' anglican priest you might just have nudged him one step further towards the catholic church, Phatcatholic! :D

this guy has a doctorate in theology, or some type of related degree, from Loyala University in Chicago. when i mentioned consubstantiation, he said, "no, that's what Lutherans believe. they believe that it is not the actual body and blood until it touches your tongue, and then it is."

huh? yea, i'd never heard that one before either.

also, the "priest" of that anglican church gave me his card. i was checkin it out yesterday and i noticed that it said: St. Thomas Church, An Episcopal/Lutheran Congregation

Episcopal/Lutheran?

that deserves another blink

i think i'm gonna email him and get this matter straightened out. i'll keep everyone posted....

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Ellenita]

Episcopal/Lutheran? That deserves another blink.  I think I'm going to email him and get this matter straightened out. I'll keep everyone posted.

Buenas suerte my friend! :D

I've never heard of a episcopal/lutheran combination before, but I have come across anglican/methodist.....wonder if it's the same? In which case it'll be low church.

I wonder how they could have the episcopal/lutheran combination in the same church if they don't believe the same about what happens during communion - anglican don't believe it 'changes on your tongue'. Do they have separate services or do people of one persuasion not take communion the weeks they attend the sevice being led by the minister of the other denomination? It's all very confusing!

Interesting to see what kind of response you get......