What is the Anglican view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist?

Even when I sat through confirmation class at 10 at the local Methodist Church, I was taught that Christ was "mysteriously present in the Lord's Supper". It surprised me later when I heard that Methodists did not believe in the Real Presence. It sure seemed like at least my pastor did.

I also grew up in a rather Anglo-catholic church that always seemed to endorse the Real Presence but never clearly defined it. As for me, the Bible seems pretty clear that Jesus meant what he said when he said "This is my body...this is my blood" and, "I am the manna come down from heaven" and again "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." That seems suggest more than some mere memorial service. But I have heard some point to the Articles' rejection of the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation as proof that Anglicans do not believe in the Real Presence. So, what's it to you? Do you believe in the Real Presence (what does that even mean)? Transubstantiation? Consubstantiation? Spiritual Presence? Or memorial ordinance? Or perhaps something else?

 

As my Bishop said when He gets ask about this and weather he believes in Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, etc his answer is yes. In my parish and Church we believe the Lord is truly present in the elements and I do use Transubstantiation to describe what I believe.

 

Transubstantiation is condemned in the strongest terms by the classical divines of the Church of England, quoted & documented extensively by Frederick Meyrick in the 1850s in a short book, here: http://archive.org/details/anappealfromthet00meyruoft

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, our great divine, reformer, & rt. rev. father in God, wrote a treatise about 1550 refuting Transubstantiation and advancing "Spiritual Presence", here: http://archive.org/details/defenceoftruecat1825cran

I voted for "There's a lot more to this", though I believe what's called Spiritual Real Presence. He is truly present in the faithful who consume the blessed bread & wine, but not in unrepentant wicked men. A Sacrament signifies the grace it purveys, but it is not the grace itself.

 

I believe that it is indeed Jesus Christ's True Body and True Blood in a mysterious way made present by the reciting of the Words of Institution by the Priest at mass. I have no problem calling it Transubstantiation or The Real Presence. But I disagree with Consular's argument. We must always examine ourselves before receiving communion lest we not discern the Body of Christ. "Hoc est enim corpus meum"

 

Do you believe I disdained the need for examination before reception? I certainly don't.

 

The Church in England believes and teaches the Real Presence,(best expounded by Queen Eliza,).
Below find a cutting from the P/Book.
We do not presume to come to this Thy Table merciful Lord) trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We be not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood, in these holy Mysteries, that we may continually dwell in him, and he in us, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood. Amen."

 

The fact is that, like baptism, multiple views including the ones listed in the OP have been found and allowed in Anglicanism.

 

THE question then is, who allowed them, was it convocation? If someone in the future looked back on quite few of the Anglican Boards at the present, including this one, they would get a total misrepresentation of Anglican belief.
Time ,place and circumstance all change, or alter cases, as they do say!

 

It is quite contrary to the spirit of Anglicanism to restrict belief to that of only one "party" in the church. Is that what you want Anglicanism to be? Are you quite sure you're Anglican?

 

Are you sure you've carefully read the Anglican Divines upon whom much of our understanding is based? Every tract they wrote was in zealous defense of some one doctrine in any given controversy: one doctrine alone which they believed was right for the universal Church in the given issue. Relativism and Absolute Tolerance are not classical Anglican virtues, but were invented in the last couple of generations.

Some One Position is always the right one, in all things. Truth is so very important. May God curse impious subjectivity.

 

I am thoroughly knowledgeable of Anglican history and theology. Anglicanism is comprehensive. On this, I stand with F.D. Maurice.

Yes, truth is important, but the definition of that often depends on who is defining it. We all see through a glass, darkly.

I agree with John Wesley, who said, "As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think." This has also been the practice of Anglicanism.

 

You've essentially just said that truth is important, but it is not. If any given truth varies in its reliability depending on who defines it, then all truths vary - and thus there is no truth!

Indeed, but some opinions do strike at the root of Christianity. Our personal perception may vary as to which doctrines those are; that is the legitimate "live-and-let-live" part. If I believe the doctrine of the Substance of the Eucharist is so overwhelmingly important for its implications in salvation and worship, however, it's my duty to refuse to let people just believe that which is harmful to the soul.

 

Do I understand you to mean that, to go to heaven, one must go through the sacrament of baptism? May anyone baptize? Or only a priest?

 

Philip the Deacon was the one to baptise the Ethiopian Eunuch in the Holy Scriptures, in Acts. That is always our standard, and the BCP is considered to be drawn from Scriptures, as with the Nicene Creed.

 

Christ teaches us in John 3:5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God".

The Apostles teach us in 1 Peter 3:20-21: "God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"

 

In St Paul's letter to the Romans, he declares, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." There is no mention of baptism. Also, wouldn't your formula means that every miscarried or aborted baby goes to hell, since they were sinners from conception? I can't believe that Our Father, who is the essence of love, would be so draconian. This seems like sacerdotalism and ritualism in the extreme.

 

How can a miscarried baby fulfill your criterion as cited from Paul, 'confess with its mouth the Lord Jesus', and thereby 'be saved'?

By the same token we can say that it is totally draconian and ritualistic to say that only through Christ are people saved, and that if you reject Him you are damned. It's even easy to cherry-pick a passage, for didn't he "die for all the world"?

And in the same way, it'd be cruel to say that just because Adam sinned way back when, we're flawed and guilty now, to be condemned by God, but if we do deny that, that's the Pelagian Heresy.

We can't let our personal feelings guide our theology. After all we live in an effete time. But remember what God told Moses, as we read in our Catechism: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me".

But neither is Paul attempting to explain the whole order of salvation there.

In another passage Paul traces out the whole process of salvation, that we are first Foreknown, then Foreordained, then Called, then Justified, then Sanctified, and then Saved. But none of those intermediate steps figure in the quote you cited either.

We should look at what the Bible teaches in its totality, and avoid the temptation to build a system from pieces.

 

It is belief tht is the basic strand or plank. I mentioned it earlier on this board, Christ is not a part of us, we are ,"Members of Christ'.
Belief is everything If we don't have the faith, we are not Anglicans.

 

Others will have to judge that. I was baptised in to the Church some time ago and no one complained since then. I'm an Anglican priest and I teach the Anglican faith. What is the cry? "One Lord, one Faith one Church!"

 

Fair point Stalwart but this doesn't answer the question I raised, do miscarried or aborted babies go to hell for want of recieving the baptismal sacrament?

The Articles teach that baptism is a sign of our regeneration, not regeneration itself. A sacrament is a visible sign of an inner spritual grace. The external is effected by the work of the visible church the inner work is a gift of God. Does the imparting of the inner grace of God depend upon the celebration of the external sign to be effected? I should not think not. The church depends on God to accomplish its work, not the other way around.