Fr. Steve, great video. I am a little over the halfway point, and I love the historical insight you bring. I still don't accept the position but you do an amazing job laying out the position historically.
Hey Fr. Steve, Excellent teaching here. Thanks. FYI, author Jeff Meyers is the Pastor of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church in a suburb of the St. Louis area. His parish has officially moved into the CREC, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, associated with Doug Wilson and that crew. Part of the reason for their change was due to the criticism and threats of discipline they received from other presbyteries of the PCA for their practice of Paedo-Communion.
I am Russian Orthodox and I don't understand why you are so opposed to the term transubstantiation. It is one term. It isn't the ONLY way to explain the Eucharist, but I don't find it particularly objectionable. Why do you find it so offensive?
Great question. Our Anglican formularies say that Transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament." At Trent, Rome teaches: “consecration there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood." If it is no longer bread and wine, it is no longer a Sacrament. To quote St. Augustine: “What you see is bread and the cup. But as your faith requires, the bread is Christ’s Body, the cup His Blood. How is the bread His Body? and the wine His Blood? These things, brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood. What appears has a bodily form: what is understood has a spiritual fruit.”
@@FrSteveMaciasThank you for replying so quickly. I certainly didn't expect that. I did watch the entire video. It seems like you tried to give an earnest and historically accurate Anglican answer to my question, so I do thank you for that. I have read the 39 Articles and am familiar with the 1549, 1662, American 1928 and American 1979 BCP. I have know quite a few Anglo Catholics over the years and am also familiar with the American Missal. In fact, I really like the Anglo Catholics and get along quite well with them. You are the first Anglican I have ever met who is so fond of Calvin. But I realize that the Anglican tradition is broad and there are High Church, Broad Church and Low Churchmen within the Communion. So therefore some High Calvinism or Mild Calvinism would probably be allowed. I am guessing the sharper and more militant forms of Calvinism would not be allowed because if you took them to their logical ends they would eliminate both the Prayer Book and the Episcopacy. Now for the disagreement part. It seems to me that Augustine and Trent are saying the exact same thing in different ways. I don't see them in contradiction to each other at all. The Orthodox argument with Rome has always been over the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy and its claims of infallible without the consent of the Church. We have never really had a real argument about the NATURE of the Eucharist with Rome to my knowledge. we have had arguments about what kind of bread should be used and when is the best time to begin one's first Eucharist.But that is about it. I will admit that the word "Transubstantiation" is a Latin term from the Scholastic period and it is outside the Orthodox tradition. It is a term we rarely use among ourselves to describe the Holy Eucharist. In the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, two things are absolutely necessary. The first is the Epiclesis, or the Invocation of the Holy Spirit on the Holy Gifts. The second is the change or transformation of the Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ when this is done. As I am sure you well know, Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy is absolutely explicit about this where the Lamb on the Diskos is first blessed (Make this bread the very Body of Thy Christ) and then the Chalice is blessed (and make that which is in this Chalice the Precious Blood of Thy Christ) and then the Deacon calls out, "Bless both, Master." And the priest says "Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen" and at that point in the Russian tradition we make a prostration as our first act of Eucharistic worship and adoration and then continue on with the Divine Liturgy and commune. Do the Anglicans believe in or require an Epiclesis over the Holy Gifts? I am a bit confused on that point because it seems like your 1662 BCP doesn't require that, but the 1928 BCP seems like it does require it. My favorite Anglican Eucharistic Prayer is Eucharistic Prayer D from the 1982 American BCP. To my Orthodox ears it sounds like an shortened and abbreviated version of St. Basil's anaphora. And it has an Epiclesis in it, although it is somewhat watered down from the original Orthodox version. At least it is there. I will end with a quotation from the Longer Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church, sometimes called the Catechism of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. It is a bit dated. It is an early 19th century Russian Orthodox Catechism. But it is still quite well loved because of its simplicity, profundity, great devotion, short concise answers and its ability to be memorized easily. This is what it says about the Eucharist. I would be interested in your reaction to it as an Anglican: 338. What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy? The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament: Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered. 339. Why is this so essential? Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ. 340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation? In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable. (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)
@@tracygriffin4439 Really appreciate the interaction. As an Anglican, I must affirm that the Sacrament *is* the body and blood of the Lord Jesus and that I eat his flesh and drink his blood, while also affirming that the *how* is a holy mystery. As you pointed out, our American Prayerbook (1928) includes the epiclesis which was brought into the Scottish liturgy by Orthodox influence (the historic Latin Roman Canon did not have an explicit epicletical prayer). To deny Transub. is not to deny Christ's real presence, but rather to avoid superstitions that may arise from misguided enthusiasts. Consider that we find no monstrances in the Orthodox churches? The Orthodox priest will say, "the eucharist is meant to be eaten." To do otherwise is to overthrow the nature of the sacrament. But it is not as though we believe it is a bare symbol, Anglicans will take the pre-sanctified to the sick and reverently consume or store the consecrated elements in the Tabernacle. Blessed Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop behind the King James Bible, wrote to the Roman Cardinal Bellarmine to describe it this way: "Christ hath said, ‘This is My Body’, not ‘This is not My Body in this mode.” Now about the object we are both agreed; all the controversy is about the mode. The ‘This is,’ we firmly believe…of the mode whereby it is wrought that ‘it is’, whether in, or with, or under, or transubstantiated, there is not a word in the Gospel. And because not a word is there, we might rightly detach it from being a matter of faith…[quoting Durandus] ‘We hear the word, feel the effect, know not the manner, believe the Presence.’ The Presence, I say, we be'lieve, and that no less true than yourselves."
Children are baptised as infants or as children do receive faith and the Spirit at their baptism yet the Church has always seen the wisdom of some discernment of the body and blood of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, not an exhaustive knowledge of how Christ is present in the elements. Keep in mind that in the Eastern Orthodox Church private confession before a priest is required before receiving the elements of bread and wine in the Divine Liturgy. How does this work with infants? My understanding is that in the Eastern Orthodox Church the infant receives Baptism, Chrismation, and first Communion yet there followed a pause in Communion until the children receive more instruction in the Holy Eucharist. The question for us as Protestants including Anglicans is how much weight should we give to the preparation for infants and children for a proper reception of Communion elements by faith with discernment of the body and blood of Christ?
I have several orthodox families in my school, and I have never heard of delaying communion for them. They are expected to have communion at least once a week from baptism to death. My children also struggle to understand the liturgy (fully) or the word preached (fully) but we train them to understand through reverent participation, not some intellectual gaslighting.
@@FrSteveMacias I had mentioned that children and even adults should not be expected to have an exhaustive understanding of how Christ is truly present in the elements of bread and wine because this is mystery. I am uncertain what you mean by “intellectual gaslighting” with reference to children. Reverent participation is the key especially for young children who have a greater capacity to appreciate the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. We have in the west and certainly in the Prayer Book tradition given emphasis on self examination and confession of sin probably because with the Reformation the required private auricular confession required before a priest became optional hence the exhortations and after 1552 the revision the use of the general confession for the congregation for the choir offices as well as the Holy Communion. Granted what was happening in the Church at Corinth involved the bad behaviour of adults. Do you provide Holy Communion to infants before they are able to eat solid food or do you wait until they are able to eat solid food? How are infants and very young children able to examine themselves to confess their sins before eating the bread and drinking the wine? I am not asking these questions in order to be critical or churlish but to understand your doctrine and practice better. What is the place of confirmation by the bishop? Children should be prepared for Confirmation and then Holy Communion at a much younger age than in most Anglican churches. There is a definite trend to children at a much younger age receiving the Lord’s Supper even in the Continuing Anglican Church.
In the Roman church, many now practice communion even before confirmation because of a Pope Pius X lowering of the age. Yet they still go on to receive the laying on of hands by the Bishop at a later date. I would not object to chrismation, but our current practice is baptism, communion and then around 7-8 they may request confirmation when appropriate.
Is there a completely direct analogy from the Passover Meal to the Holy Eucharist? Repentance was not connected to Passover Meal; whereas, in the New Covenant the Holy Eucharist requires repentance, faith, and discernment of the elements as the body and blood of Christ.
@@FrSteveMaciasthe Passover Meal does prefigure the sacrificial atonement of Christ who is the propitiation for our sins. The Israelites commemorated their deliverance from Divine wrath and judgment. There is no doubt that a baptised Christian baby is saved and regenerated receiving the Holy Ghost and faith. The question is to what extent should the Church apply the Corinthian Church’s abuse of the Lord’s Supper to the need for self-examination and repentance and how does that apply or does it apply to infants and small children still learning what sin is and how not to disobey their parents?
One could disagree with the veneration of icons as interpreted by the 2 Nicean Council, but would still have to reckon with 5 (or more) centuries of their widespread use in the post-persecution Church.
@@bridgerbond And also anathematized those that didn't practice invocation of the saints. And the council was rejected before the end of the 1st millennium because the iconodules had won.
The argument that the “body” refers only to the Body of Christ meaning the Church is problematic because St. Paul teaches that Christians should not partake of meat sacrificed to idols because that is a communion or participation in communion with demons (1st Corinthians 10:14-21). Clearly, the issue of not discerning the Body of Christ the Church is not the entire issue but also recognition that the Lord’s Supper is not just a common meal but a participation in receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Easily resolved with you cannot be one body with idols and one body with Christ. You cannot serve two masters. Doesn’t require inquiring about what is “in” the cup. My children are in the covenant, their baptism says that means they are part of the body.
Fr. Steve, great video. I am a little over the halfway point, and I love the historical insight you bring. I still don't accept the position but you do an amazing job laying out the position historically.
Hey Fr. Steve,
Excellent teaching here. Thanks.
FYI, author Jeff Meyers is the Pastor of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church in a suburb of the St. Louis area. His parish has officially moved into the CREC, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, associated with Doug Wilson and that crew.
Part of the reason for their change was due to the criticism and threats of discipline they received from other presbyteries of the PCA for their practice of Paedo-Communion.
awesome - much to reconsider now
I am Russian Orthodox and I don't understand why you are so opposed to the term transubstantiation. It is one term. It isn't the ONLY way to explain the Eucharist, but I don't find it particularly objectionable. Why do you find it so offensive?
Great question. Our Anglican formularies say that Transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."
At Trent, Rome teaches: “consecration there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood."
If it is no longer bread and wine, it is no longer a Sacrament.
To quote St. Augustine:
“What you see is bread and the cup. But as your faith requires, the bread is Christ’s Body, the cup His Blood. How is the bread His Body? and the wine His Blood? These things, brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood. What appears has a bodily form: what is understood has a spiritual fruit.”
@@FrSteveMaciasThank you for replying so quickly. I certainly didn't expect that. I did watch the entire video. It seems like you tried to give an earnest and historically accurate Anglican answer to my question, so I do thank you for that. I have read the 39 Articles and am familiar with the 1549, 1662, American 1928 and American 1979 BCP. I have know quite a few Anglo Catholics over the years and am also familiar with the American Missal. In fact, I really like the Anglo Catholics and get along quite well with them. You are the first Anglican I have ever met who is so fond of Calvin. But I realize that the Anglican tradition is broad and there are High Church, Broad Church and Low Churchmen within the Communion. So therefore some High Calvinism or Mild Calvinism would probably be allowed. I am guessing the sharper and more militant forms of Calvinism would not be allowed because if you took them to their logical ends they would eliminate both the Prayer Book and the Episcopacy.
Now for the disagreement part. It seems to me that Augustine and Trent are saying the exact same thing in different ways. I don't see them in contradiction to each other at all. The Orthodox argument with Rome has always been over the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy and its claims of infallible without the consent of the Church. We have never really had a real argument about the NATURE of the Eucharist with Rome to my knowledge. we have had arguments about what kind of bread should be used and when is the best time to begin one's first Eucharist.But that is about it.
I will admit that the word "Transubstantiation" is a Latin term from the Scholastic period and it is outside the Orthodox tradition. It is a term we rarely use among ourselves to describe the Holy Eucharist. In the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, two things are absolutely necessary. The first is the Epiclesis, or the Invocation of the Holy Spirit on the Holy Gifts. The second is the change or transformation of the Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ when this is done. As I am sure you well know, Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy is absolutely explicit about this where the Lamb on the Diskos is first blessed (Make this bread the very Body of Thy Christ) and then the Chalice is blessed (and make that which is in this Chalice the Precious Blood of Thy Christ) and then the Deacon calls out, "Bless both, Master." And the priest says "Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen" and at that point in the Russian tradition we make a prostration as our first act of Eucharistic worship and adoration and then continue on with the Divine Liturgy and commune. Do the Anglicans believe in or require an Epiclesis over the Holy Gifts? I am a bit confused on that point because it seems like your 1662 BCP doesn't require that, but the 1928 BCP seems like it does require it. My favorite Anglican Eucharistic Prayer is Eucharistic Prayer D from the 1982 American BCP. To my Orthodox ears it sounds like an shortened and abbreviated version of St. Basil's anaphora. And it has an Epiclesis in it, although it is somewhat watered down from the original Orthodox version. At least it is there.
I will end with a quotation from the Longer Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church, sometimes called the Catechism of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. It is a bit dated. It is an early 19th century Russian Orthodox Catechism. But it is still quite well loved because of its simplicity, profundity, great devotion, short concise answers and its ability to be memorized easily. This is what it says about the Eucharist. I would be interested in your reaction to it as an Anglican:
338. What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy?
The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament: Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered.
339. Why is this so essential?
Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ.
340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?
In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable. (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)
@@tracygriffin4439
Really appreciate the interaction. As an Anglican, I must affirm that the Sacrament *is* the body and blood of the Lord Jesus and that I eat his flesh and drink his blood, while also affirming that the *how* is a holy mystery.
As you pointed out, our American Prayerbook (1928) includes the epiclesis which was brought into the Scottish liturgy by Orthodox influence (the historic Latin Roman Canon did not have an explicit epicletical prayer).
To deny Transub. is not to deny Christ's real presence, but rather to avoid superstitions that may arise from misguided enthusiasts.
Consider that we find no monstrances in the Orthodox churches? The Orthodox priest will say, "the eucharist is meant to be eaten." To do otherwise is to overthrow the nature of the sacrament.
But it is not as though we believe it is a bare symbol, Anglicans will take the pre-sanctified to the sick and reverently consume or store the consecrated elements in the Tabernacle.
Blessed Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop behind the King James Bible, wrote to the Roman Cardinal Bellarmine to describe it this way:
"Christ hath said, ‘This is My Body’, not ‘This is not My Body in this mode.” Now about the object we are both agreed; all the controversy is about the mode. The ‘This is,’ we firmly believe…of the mode whereby it is wrought that ‘it is’, whether in, or with, or under, or transubstantiated, there is not a word in the Gospel. And because not a word is there, we might rightly detach it from being a matter of faith…[quoting Durandus] ‘We hear the word, feel the effect, know not the manner, believe the Presence.’ The Presence, I say, we be'lieve, and that no less true than yourselves."
Children are baptised as infants or as children do receive faith and the Spirit at their baptism yet the Church has always seen the wisdom of some discernment of the body and blood of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, not an exhaustive knowledge of how Christ is present in the elements. Keep in mind that in the Eastern Orthodox Church private confession before a priest is required before receiving the elements of bread and wine in the Divine Liturgy. How does this work with infants? My understanding is that in the Eastern Orthodox Church the infant receives Baptism, Chrismation, and first Communion yet there followed a pause in Communion until the children receive more instruction in the Holy Eucharist. The question for us as Protestants including Anglicans is how much weight should we give to the preparation for infants and children for a proper reception of Communion elements by faith with discernment of the body and blood of Christ?
I have several orthodox families in my school, and I have never heard of delaying communion for them. They are expected to have communion at least once a week from baptism to death. My children also struggle to understand the liturgy (fully) or the word preached (fully) but we train them to understand through reverent participation, not some intellectual gaslighting.
@@FrSteveMacias I had mentioned that children and even adults should not be expected to have an exhaustive understanding of how Christ is truly present in the elements of bread and wine because this is mystery. I am uncertain what you mean by “intellectual gaslighting” with reference to children. Reverent participation is the key especially for young children who have a greater capacity to appreciate the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. We have in the west and certainly in the Prayer Book tradition given emphasis on self examination and confession of sin probably because with the Reformation the required private auricular confession required before a priest became optional hence the exhortations and after 1552 the revision the use of the general confession for the congregation for the choir offices as well as the Holy Communion. Granted what was happening in the Church at Corinth involved the bad behaviour of adults. Do you provide Holy Communion to infants before they are able to eat solid food or do you wait until they are able to eat solid food? How are infants and very young children able to examine themselves to confess their sins before eating the bread and drinking the wine? I am not asking these questions in order to be critical or churlish but to understand your doctrine and practice better. What is the place of confirmation by the bishop? Children should be prepared for Confirmation and then Holy Communion at a much younger age than in most Anglican churches. There is a definite trend to children at a much younger age receiving the Lord’s Supper even in the Continuing Anglican Church.
Ah. I see. I expect mothers to bring nursing infants to the table and I’ll commune a small particle and wine.
In the Roman church, many now practice communion even before confirmation because of a Pope Pius X lowering of the age. Yet they still go on to receive the laying on of hands by the Bishop at a later date. I would not object to chrismation, but our current practice is baptism, communion and then around 7-8 they may request confirmation when appropriate.
Is there a completely direct analogy from the Passover Meal to the Holy Eucharist? Repentance was not connected to Passover Meal; whereas, in the New Covenant the Holy Eucharist requires repentance, faith, and discernment of the elements as the body and blood of Christ.
Apply that same reasoning to baptism and circumcision and you’ll end up a Baptist.
@@FrSteveMaciasthe Passover Meal does prefigure the sacrificial atonement of Christ who is the propitiation for our sins. The Israelites commemorated their deliverance from Divine wrath and judgment. There is no doubt that a baptised Christian baby is saved and regenerated receiving the Holy Ghost and faith. The question is to what extent should the Church apply the Corinthian Church’s abuse of the Lord’s Supper to the need for self-examination and repentance and how does that apply or does it apply to infants and small children still learning what sin is and how not to disobey their parents?
You want to return the Church to what it was in 1000 AD? What about icon veneration and Nicaea 2?
One could disagree with the veneration of icons as interpreted by the 2 Nicean Council, but would still have to reckon with 5 (or more) centuries of their widespread use in the post-persecution Church.
The Council of Hieria, which took place in 754 AD -- before nicaea 2-- was the first ecumenical council to ban the veneration of icons. ;-)
@@bridgerbond And also anathematized those that didn't practice invocation of the saints. And the council was rejected before the end of the 1st millennium because the iconodules had won.
@@catfinity8799 point exactly, right? Councils do error and often times contradict each other. #solascriptura
The argument that the “body” refers only to the Body of Christ meaning the Church is problematic because St. Paul teaches that Christians should not partake of meat sacrificed to idols because that is a communion or participation in communion with demons (1st Corinthians 10:14-21). Clearly, the issue of not discerning the Body of Christ the Church is not the entire issue but also recognition that the Lord’s Supper is not just a common meal but a participation in receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Easily resolved with you cannot be one body with idols and one body with Christ. You cannot serve two masters. Doesn’t require inquiring about what is “in” the cup. My children are in the covenant, their baptism says that means they are part of the body.