From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:31:18 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Oct.9.04.12.39.1992.14637@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:

> [I said that transubstantiation is a specifically Catholic doctrine.
> ewanco responded that it applies to Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans,
> and Lutherans. --clh]

> The Anglican Church does not accept transubstantiation.

> [Sorry, I should have caught this in the first place.  Neither
> Anglicans nor Lutherans mandate it.  My impression is that the
> Anglicans seem to hold a more general "real presence", and to regard
> transsubstantiation as one allowable explanation (probably not the
> most common) for how the real presence works.  The Lutherans also
> believe in the real presence, but have a more specific explanation for
> it, which is somewhat different from transsubstiation.  I don't know
> Orthodox doctrine.  --clh]

OK, let's get our facts straight.

Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, i.e. that
the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Christ.  The
original poster did not use the term "transubstantiation", and so when 
clh claimed that what he said was specifically Catholic, I countered that it
was not.

I still contend that Anglicanism _does_ in some way believe in the Real
Presence, although certainly it isn't an enforced doctrine.  Some of them
most certainly insist that they believe in transubstantiation.  Others deny
it. It depends on who you talk to.  The Anglican Liturgy most certainly points
to a belief in the Real Presence.

Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation, no, they believe in 
consubstantiation, which still means that the bread and wine become the body
and blood of Christ.

Orthodox most certainly believe the same thing Catholics do, they just don't
bother calling it "transubstantiation" and they haven't made it a dogma
because of the schism.  They still believe, though, that the bread and wine
become the body and blood of Christ and cease to be bread and wine.

--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Maynard MA     pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com        they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==========================- 2 Th 2:15 -====================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.


[Ah, sorry if I misinterpeted.  The original critique claimed that
Christians were cannibals because they ate Jesus' body.  It sounded
to me like the person had transsubstantiation in mind. 
--clh]