Anglicans believe in the Real Presence, as taught in the Bible

[@RodneyWood50]

Excellent presentation of this center doctrine of our faith, Father Timothy. THANK YOU.

[@nishisingh227]

Great exposition, Father Matkin !

[@BrockSamson18]

May God bless you and your family, Father. An edifying Homily. The Bible is clear.

[@vusimngomezulu2500]

Which church are preaching the gospel of the kingdom around the world to all nations as Jesus Christ said? Matthew 10:16, 24:14, 28:19-20, Mark 13:10.

[@BramptonAnglican]

Thank you for this great video. This also describes many Canadian Anglicans.

[@CatheterCollector]

May God bless you!

[@rafaelroxas2818]

Beautiful.

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

According to the 39 articles of faith the doctrine of transsubstantiation is rejected by the Anglican Church. Just a clarification to some questions raised below.

[@therese6447]

Exactly....they may believe some in the real presence but their 39 articles state it is based on the believer which is not true. The body and blood change substance and substantially change into Jesus Body and blood in the appearance of mere bread and wine...not based on one's belief. A very different doctrine from Anglicanism. Plus they don't have valid or licit Holy orders...when they first broke off from Catholicism they had valid but not licit priests and then Thomas Cramner changed the rubrics of the priesthood from that of offering sacrifice and breaking away from the authority of the Catholic Church and the Successor of Peter they have broken apostolic succession. So today their eucharist is not valid nor their priests. Of they truly wish to come back they can join the Chair of St Peter the Anglican Ordinariate created by Pope Benedict.

[@fre7717]

article 28- labelled as superstition. they also had the audacity to state churches of Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, Rome have all erred. conveniently, marriage is not a sacrament - i guess to please a certain king. Anglicans have severely punished catholics-to put mildly. Now the queen is gone, none of the heirs care for it.

[@brjimbo1]

The ghostsof the pre Augustinian Celtic Bishops are laughing in their graves.

[@michaelciccone2194]

Big issues: ANGLICAN Ordinate upholds the Vatican: heterodox edicts Fiducia Suplicans and Amoris Latetia edicts. Both edicts contradict traditional Christian teachings and the HOLY BIBLE....

[@stephenbailey9969]

Yes. The earliest believers were much more open to divine mystery, did not try to overly define things in philosophical terms as later scholars attempted. The point being that the distance between the spiritual and the physical is very slight, but Word and Breath.

[@clivejames5058]

Beautifully said. Amen. A question however, I thought the Catholics believed in the body, blood, soul & divinity of the Eucharist whereas the Anglicans only believe in the soul & divinity? Have I got this wrong/right?!

[@sameash3153]

Depends on which churchmanship. Low church anglicans hang onto the puritan reforms, high church anglicans hold onto the pre-reformational beliefs. Most bishops these days are high church.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Strange what you mean by presence. Epistle of hebrews chapter 1 : 1 -3. The father's of Israel ( Abraham and Issac and Jacob) plus the prophet's and Moses wrote about him. The final presence was the word made flesh.

[@PalermoTrapani]

Ok, I respect that this Anglican cleric is teaching a Eucharistic Doctrine very, very, close to the Catholic position and Orthodox as well. But I see Saint Francis as the name of His Church. Saint Francis of Assisi is a Catholic Saint, founder of the Franciscan Order and has always been 100% in Communion with the See of Rome. Is is it common for Anglicans to have their local churches named after Catholic Saints. I will point that I understand Saints in the pre-schism between Rome and Orthodoxy but Saint Francis would be a Saint 100% Catholic and loyal to the Pope and Church of Rome.

[@willx9352]

I can’t see your point. St Francis’ loyalty to the Pope is undoubted but why should that stop others from honouring him. The Anglican calendar recognises many “Catholic” saints along with ohters that are not recognised by the Catholic Church. You might even be more shcoked that there is an Anglican Franciscan order.

[@PalermoTrapani]

@@willx9352 Well because it is honoring someone that you share no communion with. Does that suggest being dishonest with yourself. If Anglicans want to honor non Catholic Saints, that is fine. Honoring someone who was not even of English Ancestry and 100% loyal to Rome and the Pope I find questionable. In fact, Anglicans are trying to claim a Catholic Saint that they have no communion with. If Anglicans want to honor pre-Henry VIII English Catholic Saints, I can somewhat understand that to a point, although How does an Anglican honor Saint Thomas Moore?

[@willx9352]

@@PalermoTrapani It is only being dishonest if I held to particular Roman Catholic doctrines about the nature of the church. You are entitled to hold them, but I don’t. If I held those beliefs, I would become a Roman Catholic, but I am not. I have no problems in honouring Christian people who have thought it important in their lives to be loyal to the pope. Catholics are Christian and I do not believe that only Anglicans are “saved” or that any particular denomination is the “true” church. Equally, I am happy to honour Orthodox saints and even (God forbid!), protestant holy people. Do you believe that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is in hell because he did not accept the claims of the Roman Pontiff - even though as a Lutheran theologian he would have been aware of them and therefore consciously rejected them. I should also mention, in a similar vein, I celebrate people such as Oscar Romero, Edith Stein and Mother Theresa - all of course who saw loyalty to the Pope as an essential feature of their Christian life. Obviously local churches will hold in particular, honour those saints who were part of their history but the church is wider than any nation and there is no reason why the Church of England should restrict itself to “English” saints (although many of them were not English!). Anglicans should (and do) in fact honour St Thomas Moore as they do John Fischer and other people who died as martyrs during the reformation. Equally, Anglicans honour martyrs such as Thomas Cramner and Hugh Latimer. The only way that any Christian should approach many of the events of the Reformation is with profound sorrow and pain rather than try to score polemical points.

[@PalermoTrapani]

@@willx9352 I am not God and make no such claim about Who is in Hell and Who is not. I do believe Christ found One Church and that is the Catholic Church and the Dogma Outside the Church there is No Salvation which as CCC para 846 says "All Salvation Comes from Christ the Head through His Church". So anyone is Saved is because Christ through Instrument of Salvation which is His Body (the Church). Now can those not in the visible Communion of the Catholic Church be saved, yes, in ways known to God they can be grafted to the Catholic Church even if they are not aware of that they should be in the Catholic Church through No Fault of their own/invincible ignorance. If you are Anglican than be Anglican. I find this honoring of Catholic saints questionable. If you want to honor fellow Protestants, then God Bless u.

[@willx9352]

@@PalermoTrapani As I said, you have your belief about the nature of the church, which Anglicans do not share. Given that Anglicans believe that all baptised Christians are in some way part of the catholic church, it would be exeedingly strange for us to then decide that 80% of baptised Christians who are in communion with the see of Rome, are somehow not Christians and are not part of the catholic church. The Church of England Calendar includes post-reformation Catholic saints such as Francis de Sales, Vincent de Paul and Teresa of Avila. These saints days are given the status of lesser festival with a specific collect for the saint. As well, of course, there are many other non-Catholic post reformation saints who are also similarly honoured: martyrs such as Bishop John Coleridge Patterson, holy people such Bishop Jeremy Taylor and John and Charles Wesley.

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

Anglicans are NOT supposed to believe that "Jesus is entirely present, BODY, BLOOD, soul and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine. (5:27) According to the Thirty Nine Articles, Article Twenty Eight. OF THE LORD'S SUPPER: "THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion#XXVIII According to IV. OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST "CHRIST did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day." In other words, the body and blood of Jesus are in heaven and will remain there until his return. This is why the Prayer book liturgy for Communion says "Lift up your hearts. Answer. We lift them up unto the Lord." In other words, Anglicans are supposed to lift their hearts into heaven so that they can spiritually feed on the body and blood of Jesus in heaven. I'm not an Anglican, but I can agree with what the Anglican church originally taught about the Lord's Supper.

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

​@@crossvilleengineering1238 Pardon my ignorance if I've misrepresented Anglicanism. I thought that the 39 Articles were supposed to be the Anglican church's statement of faith. Are they optional for Anglicans, or just suggestions, or one option among many? Please help me to understand the how Anglicans and Anglican priests are supposed to think about them.

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

@@crossvilleengineering1238 So is it up to each individual priest and Anglican to choose whether or not to believe Article 28 or to pick and choose which part he likes and doesn't like? And do priests, clergy and laypeople have the same right to pick and mix their interpretations of Scripture? I know that some Anglicans confidently affirm that Scripture is clear enough to summarise and that the 39 Articles are a good summary of what the Bible teaches, but that's just one option among many and it is equally acceptable to believe that nobody can summarise the teachings of the Bible in any way could suggest that other Christians or clergy ought to believe also? As an outsider looking in with sadness at the unending conflicts and unhappiness within the global Anglican community, I can't help worrying that this might be the case. I hope I'm wrong. Please feel free to show me I am and show me where the limits of what is orthodox and what a bishop has a right to condemn as a heresy. Does this ever happen?

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

​@@crossvilleengineering1238 Do you mean Anglican bishops like Bishop David Jenkins who denied the virgin birth and who dismissed Christ's bodily resurrection as "just a conjuring trick with bones"? Or Bishop John Shelby Spong who taught that Jesus was adopted by God as his son, and also denied the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and also argued that St. Paul was homosexual? If these are not heretical teachings, then there is no such thing as heresy. So the faithful are supposed to submit to the authority of men like these? To me, as an outsider, it seems that matter how heretical an Anglican bishop can be, he will never ever be rebuked, censured or even reprimanded by his church (never mind excommunicated). Is that unfair? Come to think of it, the only Anglican priest I can think of who has lost his job and forbidden from ever serving as a priest again for being too heretical was Rev Dr Bernard Randall who was chaplain at Trent College, Nottingham. He committed the heretical act of telling children at his school that they didn't have to go along with LGBTQ+ ideology. Although he's been cleared in all secular courts, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury has refused to take him off a list of former priests he believes are too dangerous to work with children. Yikes!

[@nilsalmgren4492]

I think many people brought up Anglican don't really believe that the bread and wine are anything but bread and wine but will say that they agree with you to not create problems.

[@patrickparsons2378]

So have the High Anglicans finally abandoned the error of Cobsubstantiation?

[@TimothyMatkin]

Consubstantion is actually associated with Lutheranism, though they don't prefer that term.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Agreed... every anglican I have met has met has been either transubstantiation or consubstantial in their beliefs... no mere symbols.. Unfortunately, they are also gay-substantial, charismatic-substantial and female ordination substantial

[@tonyoliver2750]

Well you haven't met many Anglicans if you think that all Anglicans are, to use your phrase, "gay-substantial, charismatic-substantial and female ordination substantial".

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@tonyoliver2750 I didn't say "all".. but there's plenty

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@tonyoliver2750 and the leaders aren't solving the problem

[@tonyoliver2750]

@@bigtobacco1098 OK you said "every" not "all" - what's the difference?

[@tonyoliver2750]

@@bigtobacco1098 The leaders are the problem, at least in the Anglosphere (US; Uk; NZ; Aus; Can.)

[@hartleyhare251]

As taught in the Bible? Only if you give it a real good twist and a shake. 😊

[@johnemanuele8695]

It is absurb to believe the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of christ..while the bread and wine remain bread and wine in appearance..it's like saying do you believe me ( the priest ) or your lying eyes ( reality)..😂