transubstantiation, as it was defined by the Fourth Lateran Council and again at the Council of Trent (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html) was specifically and expressly rejected by Article 28. It overthrows the nature of a sacrament.
here is what TEC defines as transubstantiation: http://library.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/transubstantiation
As someone who claims to be a High Church man, I can't say that I've ever met any. There could be some. most however quote Elizabeth's piece ,(already published earlier, or above,) "Christ was the Word that spake it: He took the bread and brake it: and what His word doth make it, that I believe and take it." (The Christian Faith, Moss, 1961.pg359.) According to Headlam, in his Translation of the Orthodox Catechism, they use the Term Transubstantiation, simply to emphasise the Presence, within the Houseling but do not believe in a carnal presence. I take it, that they believe as the Anglicans do. The Russians more a less agree with this supposition of things. The idea that High Church belief is turning from traditional values ,I don't believe, the fact is that the ,'Real Presence,' is Traditional and stems from the early Church where as Transubstantiation was inherited from some Roman Bishop of the 10th Cent.
I'm High church and the concept of transsubstatiation is distasteful to me. It turns the work of faith into a set standard of "facts" and faith is belief without seeing. I don't want to define the Real Presence, I just believe it's there.
Christ said it is his real body and blood. God enough for me. I know I will not know when or how of it.
Well I wouldn't imagine he would say it was his fake body and blood... either way at the end of the day it is only semantics...
I like the replies of 7sacraments and Rev2104. I think theories such as the Aquinaean transubstantiation and the Lutheran unio sacramentalis take away from the simple beauty and mystery of the Holy Eucharist. As St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote: *E. Hamilton Gifford's translation.
I do not think the mystery of the Eucharist, the real presence of Christ is mere semantics. No where does christ say that hey guys this is only symbol, metaphor or anything else. He say this is my body. Unless you eat(greek more like gnaw or chew) my flesh you can not have life in you. He seems really clear that is what this is
The Anglican catechism (South Africa) teaches that Jesus is present in the bread and wine and says nothing about how. The 39 Articles are not published anywhere in the Prayer Book and neither are thought in confirmation classes (or anywhere within ACSA - maybe in seminaries they are studied). My understanding is that this is a mystery and I am more comfortable leaving it at that. The spiritual presence also takes away this mystery as far as I'm concerned. All I know is that Christ said "This is my body, this is my blood" and was clearly holding bread and wine when saying these words. If he did not intend for this to be a mystery of faith, then I do not know what he intended.