2 Questions for High Church Anglicans

[Bulldog]

Hello,

I am arare that the High Church, Anglo-Catholics are very traditional and have many beliefs in common with the Roman Catholic Church. 2 Questions

Do you believe in Transubstination?

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[ICPitbull]

I believe in transubstantiation...I'm not sure if that's a common Anglican belief, but it's one that I hold.

I don't believe in sola scriptura, in that I do believe in the importance of tradition. I do believe, however, that everything needed for salvation is in the Bible.

[PaladinValer]

Some High Church A/Es do. I personally am still debating it myself, and you can hold to that doctrine and be in good standing.

All A/Es believe that the Holy Bible contains all things necessary for salvation and are authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine, which is the historic, orthodox view. It is the "biggest wheel" in the Scripture-Tradition-Reason "tricycle," but we hold that Tradition also is authoritative (ie: the Creeds and the Ecumenical Councils) and so possibly can Reason. Most of us don't view the Bible anymore than a theological text; we don't usually take it as authoritative in matters of history or science for the reason above. A few of us are literalists, but they are few.

[pmcleanj]

The classical Anglican response to the question of Transubstantiation is:

"His was the Word that spake it.
He took the bread and brake it.
And what His Word doeth make it
I do believe and take it."

The rhyme is attributed to Princess Elizabeth while being questioned by her elder sister's inquisitors. It's a typical Anglican sidestep of a direct doctrinal question: we are a people of aphorisms rather than a people of dogma. Obviously, when you have multiple mutually-independent Bishops, absolute dogma isn't going to be easy to create as it is with a central hierarchy.

Technical transubstantiation is an awkward doctrine to examine. It hypothesizes that the bread and wine become physically transformed into the *substance* of Christ's flesh and blood, under the *form* of bread and wine. This raises the question of whether, at a molecular level, the molecules have the form of protein and haemoglobin and only the macroscopic form of flesh and blood, or whether we have actual protein and haemoglobin molecules under the *form* of starch and sugar molecules. If the former, were we to drop a drop of iodine onto a consecrated host -- in the most reverent manner, of course -- it would not turn blue, because no starch would be present. But that begs the question of how our taste buds -- also functioning by chemical reaction -- end up tasting starch and sugar. If the latter -- protein molecules under the form of starch molecules -- then we have to ask what is meant by *substance*. At all testable levels of reality, no change has taken place, except to challenge the validity of empirical observation.

A more common view of the Eucharist among Anglicans is Consubstantiation: the belief that the substance of the Lord's flesh and blood is present beneath, with and through the substance of the bread and wine, and that the means by which it is present is a mystery.

The Anglican statement of Sole Scriptura is that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." It's interesting to note that it *doesn't* say you have to believe everything in the Bible. It says you can't be held to believe anything that *isn't* in the Bible. The logical difference may be subtle, but it makes the difference between having to take young-earth creationism as "part of the package" of the gospel, and being able to function as a Christian without playing false to my intellect.

[Polycarp1]

We look on Scripture as foundational rather than exclusive in the formulation of doctrine and practice -- nothing may be taught contrary to Scripture, but Scripture may be understood and interpreted by Tradition and Reason.

Regarding Transubstantiation, it is the (Roman) Catholic formulation, devised by St. Thomas Aquinas, using Aristotelian and Scholastic concepts, of how the Real Presence can be understood using those terms and concepts. With the Orthodox, we do not deny it, but we do not prescribe it -- in fact, one of our historical documents polemically says that it "overthrows the nature of a sacrament," something few of us would ever be so snotty as to say today -- preferring instead to honor the mystery of the Real Presence -- however it is that God the Son does it, He comes to be present under the form of bread and wine. Is that any help?

[benedictine]

The Answer to the question regarding Transubstantiation is that yes, personally, I do. Question two, I used to, but that was when I was Baptist.

[Yahweh Nissi]

From reading various post by Lutherians, I think that what Luther meant by Sola Scripture actually was what people have been giving as the general Anglican understanding - it is just that the term tends to be used rather differently now to mean the kind of 'one man and his Bible' approach to doctrine.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Transubstantiation - no, not as an absolute reality, but I use the transubstantiation model to approach the Sacrament. I am open-minded on what really goes on, save that it is more than merely a memorial. I believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist; I do not try to pin down how.

Sola Scriptura? No. Since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not itself stated in Scripture, it is itself a Traditional belief. If we're going to admit to Tradition as well as Scripture, there's no point calling the position Sola Scriptura. In other words, it's a paradox - "Scripture only, except for the belief in Scripture Only itself which isn't in the Scripture"

Or at least so think I.

[TomUK]

For me, nothing makes the mind boggle more than the real presence of the Eucharist. I have spent so long thinking about it and have never made any process. I'm always hesitant about using words such as transubstantiation or consubsubstantiation as it implies some sort of understanding. Personally,i prefer to few the process as one of the faiths major mysteries; that's not to say i don't believe something amazing happens at the eucharist- i just can't understand the nature of if.

[Polycarp1]

For me, nothing makes the mind boggle more than the real presence of the Eucharist. I have spent so long thinking about it and have never made any process. I'm always hesitant about using words such as transubstantiation or consubsubstantiation as it implies some sort of understanding. Personally,i prefer to few the process as one of the faiths major mysteries; that's not to say i don't believe something amazing happens at the eucharist- i just can't understand the nature of if.
The joy in this communion is that you don't have to "believe three impossible things before breakfast," to quote a gentleman not noted for his theology otherwise. When I get to the point of Eucharistic debate frustrating me or exceeding my boggle quotient, I take refuge in Good Queen Bess's quatrain in response to her sister's inquisitors, quoted by pmcleanj up above, and so perfectly sound and nuanced that any of us, including Woody and the Orthodox or Methodist passing through and reading this, can agree with it without offense to their own communions' teachings.

[chalice_thunder]

Hopefully this won't de-rail the OP. But I just had to share a little thing:

I believe in the mystery of Real Presence. However, it just cracks me up when the altar guild gets all flustered when crumbs from the bread fall. "Every single crumb must be accounted for and disposed of properly." I understand there may be a piety behind this - but I wonder if that piety is well placed. Perhaps we can do little more education around this issue, and let the ladies calm down a bit. Reverence - sure. Abject terror at the thought of "Jesus falling on the floor" - doesn't cut it with me.

Our program staff has laughed a few times when dealing with this: "Jesus falls a second time."

And back to OP - is it necessary to believe one doctrine or the other, in order to know that we are being fed deeply by our Lord?

[julian the apostate]

as a roman catholic ex evangelical currently attending an episcopal church,
do you have any idea how wonderful your church is?

[PaladinValer]

Well, I certainly think the Episcopal/Anglican Church is wonderful! :D

Glad you found that it is the same for you, julian! Have you converted to Anglicanism or are you still "checking it out"? :)

[chalice_thunder]

as a roman catholic ex evangelical currently attending an episcopal church,
do you have any idea how wonderful your church is?
I do - and welcome, welcome, welcome to you julian.
I hope you are being well nourished in the church you currently attend.
Blessings :clap:

[julian the apostate]

still considering

part of grace of episcopal is that they actually make me appreciate rome more

truly wonderful experience, leaning towards becoming anglican

[Jay2004]

still considering

part of grace of episcopal is that they actually make me appreciate rome more

truly wonderful experience, leaning towards becoming anglican

Why did you stop going to a catholic church?

[pmcleanj]

Why did you stop going to a catholic church?
From an Anglican perspective, the Anglican church *is* catholic.

[garydench]

Tricky questions.

I've only really just come to terms with the ideas, having gone through a passage of faith more or less on my own, but in a way I have always believed in the idea of transubstantiation - a reason why we Catholics don't allow non-Catholics to take communion in our churches.

The majority of High Church Anglicans tend to be quite liberal in their interpretation of scripture, on the other hand there are some, known as Anglo-Catholics who take the Roman line on biblical teaching.

[PaladinValer]

Anglo-Catholic simply means "English Catholics," which refers to any Anglican.

[TomUK]

Anglo-Catholic simply means "English Catholics," which refers to any Anglican.

Well yes, in the sense that catholic refers to any Christian. However, the usage of the term Anglo-Catholic now refers to a specific aspect of the Anglican Church

[PaladinValer]

True, but High Church IMO is = to Anglo-Catholic in that sense.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Tricky questions.

I've only really just come to terms with the ideas, having gone through a passage of faith more or less on my own, but in a way I have always believed in the idea of transubstantiation - a reason why we Catholics don't allow non-Catholics to take communion in our churches.

The majority of High Church Anglicans tend to be quite liberal in their interpretation of scripture, on the other hand there are some, known as Anglo-Catholics who take the Roman line on biblical teaching.
Really, there's not much difference between folk calling themselves High Church and folk calling themselves Anglo-Catholic. They're divided into two main groups - the Forward in Faith types, who oppose women priests and form strategic alliances with evangelical groups, and the Affirming Catholicism types who form strategic alliances with liberal groups. Main bones of contention are women priests and homosexuality.

Of course there are folk stuck in the middle - accepting of one but not the other of these bones of contention.

[pmcleanj]

They're divided into two main groups - the Forward in Faith types, who oppose women priests and form strategic alliances with evangelical groups, and the Affirming Catholicism types who form strategic alliances with liberal groups.
Not entirely fair. There are also those who simply prefer chanted liturgy, copious quantities of acolytes, luxurious vestments, detailed ceremonial, incense, stained glass, votive candles and all the other sensual panoply of high ceremonial. In fact I would argue that liturgical style is a much greater factor in how Anglicans self-identify, than is church politics and doctrine.

As one of my favourite Anglican jokes goes:

"Anglicans are people who are tolerant in matters of doctrine and faith, but will resist to the last man any attempt to introduce a new hymn."

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Yes, this is very true. I was thinking (a) more of the leadership than the punters in the pews, and (b) more of the ones likely to write letters to the Church Times.

[TomUK]

"Anglicans are people who are tolerant in matters of doctrine and faith, but will resist to the last man any attempt to introduce a new hymn."

:D

[garydench]

lol

[Lilac]

Yes, transubstantiation is real--it's awesome--the real thing --and it's totally Scriptural!!!! most fundamentalists don't know this!!!! They're missing out!!!!

And no Sola Scriptura is not practical, not historical and not biblical. It's only something I think Fundamentalists believe--I don't know how people could ignore Tradition and the Church Fathers but they do!!!



God Bless!!!!:wave:

[bfoos]

Greetings all.

I am new here, so please forgive me if I commit some mortal sin of internet protocol.

The question of transubstantiation and sola scriptura are common for the Anglican, reflecting the difficulty that many have had in understanding Anglican doctrine, including many Anglicans. Some of this difficulty, I believe, is evidenced in a reading of the posts following the question.

At the risk of repeating some good insights already stated, I will try to give my two cents.

Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the medieval Church, as already stated. It has to do primarily with Aristotle's view of the world and his parameters of thought. So, accident and substance are the primary words that have to be understood to understand the medieval doctrine. Accidents are the "thing's" outward, viewable, sensible (as in the senses) characteristics. Substance refers to the essence of what a thing is.

For Aristotle, one is going to be able to understand the substance by the accidents, or at least be guided in the general direction. The medieval concept of the presence of Christ in the sacrament built upon Aristotle's terms but used them in a way that Aristotle would not have. The accidents (bread and wine) remain the same (look, taste, etc. like bread and wine), but the substance changes (becomes the physical/corporeal body and blood of Christ).

This of course, is considered a great mystery--and indeed, it is. However, the problem is that the early Church does not, arguably, hold to this view. The English Reformers were about being Catholic, not Roman. In other words, they rightly saw transubstantiation as a new development in doctrine that goes awry from the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church Catholic.

Therefore, to condense this discussion a bit (lest I go on forever), the Anglican doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is most definitely not transubstantiation (nor for that matter, is it consubstantiation--the Lutheran view), but it is a strong belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We believe that Christ is present just as much as the Roman churchman does; we just don't pretend to say more about how Christ is present than Christ or His apostles did.

Regarding Sola Scriptura. It is hard to imagine a more mangled doctrine today. The teaching of the Reforming Catholics (the first generation of reformers who sought to be Catholic) was and is a wonderfully ancient teaching of the Church on the authority of Scripture in the life of the Church.

Today, that teaching has degenerated to "me and my Bible" Christianity, which is hardly worthy of the name. The teaching that says I can interpret the Bible on my own without any guidance from the Church is a direct contradiction of the biblical text itself, not to mention the teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years.

So, is the Anglican view of the Scripture a view that recognizes the doctrine termed in the 16th century "sola scriptura"? Yes. But to understand what was meant by sola scriptura, one has to read those Reforming Catholics. Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is the final authority, not the only authority. It also was always understand that you had to have an authoritative interpretation of that authoritative document. That authoritative interpretation has always been given by Christ's Church.

What is to be believed regarding the faith of the Church? That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all (St. Vincent of Lerens). That is the faith of the Church Catholic which is most obviously stated in the three ecumenical creeds, and that principal is the basis for the Church's interpretation of God's Holy Writ. (by the way, Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura is a good modern text on this topic.)

For my money, the Anglican view of the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church to interpret it is the most Biblical and Catholic view of authority amongst any Church today. Unfortunately, most Anglicans in the States do not understand this doctrine and therefore, have a hard time applying it!!

Thanks for letting me chime in.

bfoos

[pmcleanj]

Greetings all.

...(followed by LOTS of good stuff)...

Thanks for letting me chime in.

bfoos

Wow! what a great response, beautifully explained, showing evidence of a solid theological foundation.

Post any time!

And feel free to tell us more about yourself -- I'm a fan already.

[bfoos]

Wow! what a great response, beautifully explained, showing evidence of a solid theological foundation.

Post any time!

And feel free to tell us more about yourself -- I'm a fan already.


Well, this was a gracious response. Many Thanks!

I'm not sure anyone else will care, but regarding more about myself, I'm an anglican priest from out here on the left coast of the US with a wife and two little ones. I run a school and parish. Essentially, I would define myself as a classical High Churchman. That means that I follow the doctrinal tradition in the last 500 years that is represented by the English Reformers (Cranmer and Ridley being key), the 17 century divines from Hooker to Laud, the non-jurors, etc.

I'm definitely not a low-churchman, but I am an evangelical. I don't usually refer to myself as an anglo-catholic, but I am a Catholic priest. I am an Anglican because I believe it is the best expression of Biblical Christianity around.

Hope that helps....

bfoos

[pmcleanj]

I am a Catholic priest. I am an Anglican because I believe it is the best expression of Biblical Christianity around. (emphasis pmcleanj's)

And there in two sentences, you have summed up what it means, to me at least, to be Anglican ( ;) with the exception of course that being a priest isn't a requirement :D )

You can speak for me! I'll just sit back in the pew now and cheer you on :clap:

[Rilian]

What is to be believed regarding the faith of the Church? That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all (St. Vincent of Lerens).

I think that is truly the first time I've ever seen that famous quote from the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins applied within the context of Anglicanism. Certainly a note of irony there.

[bfoos]

I think that is truly the first time I've ever seen that famous quote from the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins applied within the context of Anglicanism. Certainly a note of irony there.


It is ironic that Anglicanism is founded upon catholic orthodoxy and most of the American branch of Anglicanism is foundered upon the heterodoxy and heresy of modernity and post-modernity.

Classic Anglican theology and doctrine is all about St. Vincent's famous words. Cranmer's theology was shaped by the same. We could use some reformation about now, though....

[Rilian]

the American branch of Anglicanism is foundered upon the heterodoxy and heresy of modernity and post-modernity.

Quite so bfoos. I think this Anglican blog outlines it well - Breaking the captivity to Modernity (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=105).

[BAChristian]

bfoos...enjoy your stay...may your time here be a blessed one...

[PaladinValer]

It is ironic that Anglicanism is founded upon catholic orthodoxy and most of the American branch of Anglicanism is foundered upon the heterodoxy and heresy of modernity and post-modernity.

Classic Anglican theology and doctrine is all about St. Vincent's famous words. Cranmer's theology was shaped by the same. We could use some reformation about now, though....
Which Ecumenical Council denounced this?

[bfoos]

By this, I take it you mean modernity and post-modernity?

In response, I guess I am guilty of assuming too much. Modernity and post-modernity both have elements of heretical teaching--i.e. outside the bounds of the Creeds. Both arguably provide fodder for and/or foster some of the classical heresies.

For example: the rationalistic/enlightenment thought of modernity tends to place all important issues in the realm of the mind and as much as modern Christianity has picked up on this (and rationalistic/enlightenment thought is legion in the modern Church) it has tended to become gnostic.

Pax Christi

bfoos

[PaladinValer]

I consider myself a "progressive" (ie: a moderate or a liberal), so when you said "modernity" and "post-modernity," I thought you implied moderates and liberals. My apologies if you didn't, as I am quite orthodox in my belief in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason :)

[bfoos]

No apologies needed. This skins are a requirement for priests and mine is probably thicker than most. You consider yourself a moderate or liberal what?? If you are quite orthodox in your beliefs in Scripture, Tradition and Reason, then you must not be a moderate or liberal in the ecclesiastical realm, but rather a conservative.

Post-modernity is actually strangely conservative...or rather, has a conservative side to it as the things of the past are considered valuable, at least to a certain degree.

bfoos