I'm an Anglican from New Zealand, and I have learned a lot from Prof Rt Revd N.T. Wright, the New Testament scholar. How I would see the Real Presence in the Eucharist is that when Jesus "ascended into heaven," he moved into another dimension that is not far from us, but is not normally visible to us; therefore, in the Eucharist Christ comes to us from this other dimension and embraces us as his beloved Bride, bringing heaven and earth together in a foretaste of the eternal new heavens and new earth.
I'm not Chris Findley but will attempt an answer: It is because one must have Holy Orders in order to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist and the Episcopal Church cannot confer such orders because one must have Apostolic succession to do so. So, the break with Rome initiated by Henry VIII was the initiating thing and as the years passed, the power of conferring the sacrament of orders i.e. a line of succession to the Apostles was lost. Further the "ordination" of women would remove all doubt, especially as they are made into bishops. The sacraments remain in Eastern Orthodox (non-Catholic) churches, and are recognized as valid by the Catholic Church because they have preserved Apostolic succession. As far as Catholics are concerned, clergy in the Anglican and Episcopalian churches are effectively lay people who have zero power to confect the Eucharist, or to offer the sacrament of confession, among other things. Additionally, as mentioned in the video, one of the ideas behind the sacrament is unity of the body of Christ, therefore, in almost all circumstances, non-Catholics should not receive communion in a Catholic Church, and visa-versa. There are other reasons as well. Catholics reverence the Blessed Sacrament as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The teaching of Transubstantiation is that the outward appearances are of bread and wine, but that it is changed in its very substance, hence trans for change and substantiation for substance. So, the outward or accidental appearance is unchanged. There have been many miracles related to the Eucharist within the Catholic Church over the centuries. As one can see, the belief even about the sacrament itself is not the same, not in unity between the churches, and the way in which the sacrament is confected is not the same, i.e Apostolic succession of orders, teaching authority, etc. However, the sacrament of Baptism may be recognized by the Catholic Church, because the teaching there is that anyone may Baptize another. Also, I believe the sacrament of marriage may also be recognized, assuming no prior marriages and male to female. The sacrament of marriage is conferred by the individuals involved, the man to the woman and the woman to the man, there can be no divorce, there can be annulment. Annulment being the sacrament of marriage did not occur, in the best judgment of the church, due to an impediment existing at the time the marriage "happened". It gets complicated doesn't it! Best wishes!
I am a Catholic, so there is no brevity because after 2000 years the answers get longer and longer with each year. And after Franky they will be much much longer :)
Thank you Fr. Clear and correct. Another young Anglican videographer on YT needs to watch this - he made a one hour hodge p[odge of the Eucharist which sounded more Presbyterian than Anglican.
There are also several different sects of Anglicanism. Not all Anglicans teach real presence, but like Thomas Cranmer believe in the Spiritual Presence. A historic Anglican church will also subscribe to the 1662 BCP and the 39 articles. Anyone who is seriously curious about Anglicanism in her traditional and original meaning should study the formularies.
Hi Chris, your videos really have been helping me get my mind round Anglican worship, having come from a Baptist background things seem a lot different. I have been invited to lead the Prayers of Intercession in the new year, have you any advise or words of encouragement that may help me please? Nick. God bless you.
Hi Nick, sorry for the delay. I'm glad these are helping you! It's why I made them! I think the main thing with reading anything in church is to read sincerely, with feeling, but without drama. Nothing is quite so distracting as someone who reads as if they are acting out the parts or reading to kindergarteners. :-) So the main thing in your case, is to pray (more than read) with conviction and sincerity-- recognizing the wonderful role you have in assisting the congregation with taking their prayers to the Lord.
I belonged to a continuing Anglican Church, 1928 prayer book, sacramental, very reverent, 1940 hymnal ect. now I live in a town where there is no such thing. I guess I should look into the Orthodox Church, I am really missing the traditional Anglican Church. Do you have any advice ?
Hi Joe, sorry for the delay. It depends on where you are theologically. I don't think I'd become Orthodox just because I liked traditional worship --there's good bit of theology that goes with such a move. So I'd encourage you to really study Orthodoxy in depth and see if it is a good fit for you and make that move if/when you become convinced of the truth of Orthodoxy. I have several friends who went that way, so I totally understand the attraction. I don't know where you live so I can't say for sure, but I know that there are a number of traditional church jurisdictions around that might have something within driving distance for you (admittedly, perhaps you have already done all that legwork). If I can help, just let me know. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
Become a Catholic, we are Christ’s Church and I’m sure a local RCIA class will adequately dispel your misconceptions and answer all of your questions...
Just FYI the traditional Catholic are looking for the same thing to go back to what the church was before Vatican ll. With it's teachings and it's belief. And not with wishy-washy warm and fuzzy type of Catholic there is currently.
You have the Ordinariate of the Catholic Church. The only valid expression of Anglican patrimony out there. “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
But this seems to contradict the 29 articles that speak of only a spiritual presence and not Jesus in, with, and under the bread and the wine - real presence.
@@chrisfindley9037Thanks Father now I understand better. During my Erasmus in Tuscany I attended an Anglican Church and I didn't know if I could take the holy communion. Father William told me that it was ok, so I took it :) .
@@dragonis89u31 If you didn't know then that was ok but essentially (from the Catholic point of view - not from the Anglican) the answer is no, the Roman Catholic Church does not permit Catholics to receive communion in Churches not in union with the Catholic Church.
But does the Anglican believe in the transubstantiation takes place where the bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Jesus and the moment of consecration. And the concept of communion is a sacrifice or a symbolic meaning. Or is it just a meal of remembrance with no concept of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass.
No. Transubstantiation is a medieval Roman doctrine. Anglicans believe, as the early fathers taught, that the bread and wine are truly the glorified body and blood of Christ, spiritually recieved when one takes the sacrament in faith. No magical transformation, but an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace. I would go further and say that as in Baptism we die with Christ, in the Eucharist we begin our participation in His Resurrection, and thereby in the re-creation of all things. He promised a new heaven and a new earth, in the Eucharist He gives us a new life, His life. We all fall short of this, so we must repent, and rededicate ourselves to Him and our new life in Him. The Eucharist is our pledge and bond even to our own death in disgrace, naked on a cross, and to our resurrection into Glory and Oneness with Him as He is One with the Father.
Can be confusing - but I was confirmed 1955 Episcopal/Anglican and my little 1954 Saint Augustine Prayer Book which was given at Confirmation. The book one would think was Roman Catholic. Goes into how to prepare to confess your sins to a priest; Holy Rosary - Prayers to the Blessed Mother Mary - The Mass , etc... I remember as a little girl I went to Catholic Schools and wanted to be Catholic, but my parents Episcopal/Anglican, but in those days the priest said there was very little difference in the sacraments etc... only difference was in the actual structure of the Church itself. As years went by and when traveling to attend a Catholic mass I would ask permission to take holy communion from the priest - they said as an Anglican I do not have to even ask for permission since Anglicans believed in the real presence. So the Anglican church today many say "always takes the middle ground" but in a sense the Anglican Church through love of all men accept all - is more accepting to every human being. Who is man to act like God to dictate what you have to do in order to receive Christ in the flesh though Holy Communion - in the end I believe the grace of Christ through the Holy Communion only unites if the heart of the receiver is sincere and truly repentant of their sins. I would change to become Catholic on one issue: real presence of Christ in the Holy Communion - but as shared in this video the Anglican belief is the same as the RCC - Holy Communion Christ is present in the flesh through the Holy Communion - and is not symbolic.
Diane Diehl The RCC believes the Eucharist is literally Christ not that Christ is “made present”. Please don’t receive communion at Catholic Churches unless you’re catholic. You’ll go to hell otherwise
@@Александр-н5з5ъ even The Church you think you belong to or you believe that you are the part of, doesn't predicate "who goes to hell or who doesn't". There is no law has been given to you to tell that, becouse you are NOT God, even if you are constanltely trying to be Him. Or just don't be a typicall internet troll. Shame on you
kamil R You are correct in that it does not speak of individual souls. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture and Tradition is speaks of those groups who will perish. For example St Paul speaks of the drunkards and sexually immoral who perish. Moreover, Sacred Tradition says “outside the Church there is no salvation”. We know what exactly the church fathers meant when they referred to the Church, they were referring to the Church founded on Peter, headed by the Roman Pontiff together with all the bishops in communion with him.
@@kamilr442 Thank you. I was raised a Catholic and was never taught to say who goes to hell or not. We, just went to confession to assure that it wasn't us.
No. Some Anglicans belief in it, but Anglicanism as a whole, like Orthodoxy, prefers to leave it as a mystery. Transubstantiation is a way for the Catholic Church to define the real presence whereas Anglicanism and Orthodoxy do not feel the need to define "how" it happens.
I think Anglicans follow Lutherans in believing in consubstantiation, which is slightly milder than transubstantiation but effectively means the same thing.
That is the same question I posed since being a Catholic the church has not been teaching that concept since Vatican ll. and that is why in a Pew poll that so many Catholics believe in the real presence since Vatican ll which was one of the beliefs they stopped teaching.
Another dimension of the body of Jesus descending every time the priest holding a piece of wafer or 🍞 bread 😍is it Eucharist taught by catholism or holy Bible 😍 one time atonement is more than enough 😍 the rest is tradition 😂
That is essentially what I was trying to get at in the video-- although I didn't use the term. "Con" meaning "with" or of the same essence. So when we say "This is the Body of Christ" we aren't crossing our fingers. But we leave the precise "how" of this to mystery. Whereas "Transubstantiation" is very much concerned with explaining how via metaphysical change, accidentals etc.
@@Александр-н5з5ъ Roman Catholics believe in ignoring children being raped and relocating the priests to do it again and even promoting them to Cardinal.
Marriage Sex Divorce family disputes 😂😁and power struggle between church and state results in breakaway from catholic Church and became Anglican Church under King and Queen not under Christ 👍🏼
