POLL: Does Anglicanism consider the Eucharistic food itself to really be or have Christ's body?

As I understand it, the patriarch is elected by a council of Orthodox, and afterwards the Turks can agree with or veto the decision. The muslim governments are not the highest power because there were times when the EO Patriarch went into exile away from the Muslim governments, eg in Jerusalem. Were the Muslim government the highest authority, they could choose to abolish the Patriarch or patriarchate, but they cannot do this.

The EOS agree that the patriarch of Constantinople is considered first among equals. He does not have authority to nullify the internal decisions of the other EO churches.

Even if you were right, you would be confusing practice with doctrine to say one only needs to look at history books to see what the church teaches. That is kind of like saying that Henry Viii called himself the head of the church or the black rubric in history opposed the real presence so that is the Anglican position.

But anyway, like I said, I would be interested in seeing any EOS who taught that under the tsar the patriarch was not the highest person in the church. I am extremely skeptical that this was actually their formal doctrine as you say.

Feel free to let me know what EO writers say that the patriarch should not be the highest authority in the church and that Putin should be.

 

In the Church of England today, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are the leader of that Church, with Christ as its Head. The Queen's title and role as Governor of the Church of England in this day and age is quite different to how it was in Henry VIIIs time. The title Governor of the Church of England is more of an honorary title - ceremonial/symbolic. Other Churches in the Anglican Communion (in communion with Canterbury) have their own Archbishops who are leaders of their Churches. Anglican Churches outside of communion with Canterbury have their own Church Leaders. We are not in Henry VIIIs time anymore. Yes, in Henry's time he set himself up as being the highest authority for the Church in England instead of the Pope, but that is not the situation now,the Crown doesn't regard itself as the Supreme authority in the same way st all.

 

Do you think any mainstream leading Anglicans have written like St Cyril did that what they eat is only body and "not bread" even though it looks like bread?

You write: "The wisdom of the east has been to not be too dogmatic on the issue, and I think Anglicanism has probably followed this tradition."
As I understand it, the EOs have a strong consensus that there is a real, objective, direct presence in the food itself, but that they are not dogmatic about whether the real presence is A. in the form of Jesus being in spirit mode in the bread or whether it occurs as B. Transubstantiation. Instead, major EO theologians can be found with either opinion, A or B.

For someone who believes that Receptionism counts as "real presence", perhaps the EO position is too dogmatic?

 

I read the Institution narratives in the synoptic gospels. I read the Bread of Life discourse in John 6. I read Paul in 1 Corinthians 10. I don't have any problems with those documents. I read Cyril of Jerusalem as you quote him, and I am reminded of these passages in Holy Scripture, and I don't see any problem.

When I read the articles, I am happy that they are happily consistent with both Scripture and the Fathers. I understand that if you wanted to take a contrary view, your could, however I see no need to do so.

I would never suggest that the EO was too dogmatic. Only the Orthodox could make that decision. My only expectation is that we all be authentic.

kyrie eleison

 

When the Articles reject Transubstantiation, do you interpret "Transubstantiation" to mean the belief that the substance of the bread changes into the substance of Jesus' body?

 

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore,
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived:
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed.
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.
I don't think we need complex arguments about accidents and substance, we have the words of Jesus, we have the presence of Christ. I affirm what the The 39 Articles say, and that includes acceptance of both Scripture and Holy Tradition, together with what my reason tells me of my experience.

I stand with John Donne and Elizabeth I on this matter.

 

Amen.

 

The "spiritual" Head of the Anglican Communion (in communion with Canterbury) is the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the Queen of England. She doesn't have any role in provinces other than in England and in England that role is limited. Each province within the Anglican Communion has its own Primate and governs itself autonomously (a bit like the EO Churches). The Archbishop of Canterbury has precedence of honour over the other primates and is recognised as first among equals.

 

Would anyone be able to point me to a copy of the most recent Anglican catechism in case it discusses the question of the presence in the Eucharist bread?

 

I found on the Anglican Eucharistic Theology website the following discussion on the latest Australian Anglican Catechism that I found:

http://anglicaneucharistictheology....se_Studies/Entries/2005/12/24_Catechisms.html

However, as I understand it, catechisms do not have the same force that the Articles of Religion do.

 

And neither have the same force as Holy Scripture, which is very clear on the Real Presence.

 

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/artic...nt-part-of-church-of-england-reform-programme
There is no recent C of E catechism - this article written in 2015 discusses the need for a revised catechism.

The C of E catechism is given here. But I don't believe I have ever seen it before. It wasn't something I was introduced to when preparing to become a full member of the Church.
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/a-catechism.aspx

 

Hello, CWJ,

I understand that within Anglicanism, Holy Scripture is named as the highest authority.
Might you please tell me how you would define the term "Real Presence", because as I understand it, some theologians use it in various ways?

 

I stated my beliefs in post #139 a few pages back:
"Here is what I believe, and the Anglican church I attend affirms...Christ is really and truly present in the Sacrament. The bread I am given and I receive is His body, the Wine I am given and I receive is His blood."

I take the Anglo-Catholic view as to me it best matches the beliefs of the Scriptures, undivided Church and the Fathers.

 

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with your statement above.

Now here is a hard part I have: I would like to think that the scripture is very clear , just as you asserted, on this point. In fact, I can think of numerous literary reasons to support the position that you and I have on this question. However, in evaluating the clarity of the scripture on it, I also have to address the challenge that many well educated, intelligent, sincere Anglican scholars such as Cranmer have taken an opposite position, while others like NT Wright openly avoid taking one. And since I do consider these Anglican scholars to be intelligent, educated, sincere Christians who take this question seriously, I have trouble asserting that the scripture is very clear on the point.

How would you address this challenge of evaluating the scripture's clarity in this situation?

 

That's a good question, but has a fairly simple answer, I believe.
And that is that Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Tradition, Councils, Creeds and Fathers.

Here's a link about the Holy Bible from the Anglican Catholic Church (which is in full communion with my own (ACA).
http://www.anglicancatholic.org/the-bible-is-the-word-of-god?class=greenlink

Under the title "The Church's Book" is a quote from Anglican divine Richard Hooker:
"Hooker warns against the idea that Scripture can be read without consulting the tradition, as extreme Puritans and Anabaptists proposed: "when they and their Bibles were alone together, what strange fantastical opinion soever at any time entered into their heads, their use was to think the Spirit taught it them." (Laws, Preface VIII.7)"

 

​

This statement "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."

 

Mockingbird,
How might one address the fact that St Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, is one of the main church fathers, and that the writings of Cyril were declared orthodox at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which as I understand it, the Anglican Church subscribes to?

How might one address the fact that the Anglican Breviary points to Cyril's teachings on the Eucharist for instruction?

 

I'm not so sure of that.
St. Cyril of Alexandria is considered to be among the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church by Anglicans, and pretty much all other Christians as well.

 

The feast of St Cyril of Alexandria is set to be observed on the 27th of June in contemporary calendars. He was not included in the calendar of 1662 as he was not included in the Latin Calendar at the time of the Henry VIII.

In his life his great arguments were with Nestorious. He was an upholder of the Nicene Creed of the Father of Constantinople.