What is the difference between Catholic transubstantiation vs.

File: IMG_0861.png (19KB, 614x577px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 614x577px

capers

>>2440217
One is based on what Christians always thought it was, the other is based on one theologian's opinion

>>2440914
>one is based on a cherry-picked collection of retards
>the other isn't
ftfy

>>2440217
Literal Eat God, Be God v Symbolic Do this in remembrance of me.

First one is pagan, the second one is a quote from Jesus.

>>2440241
kek

>>2440217
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Anglicanism

Elizabeth I, as part of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, gave royal assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which sought to distinguish Anglican from Roman Church doctrine. The Articles declared that "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 Elizabethan Settlement accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, but refused to define it, preferring to leave it a mystery. Indeed, for many years it was illegal in Britain to hold public office whilst believing in transubstantiation, as under the Test Act of 1673. Archbishop John Tillotson decried the "real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion", considering it a great impiety to believe that people who attend Holy Communion "verily eat and drink the natural flesh and blood of Christ. And what can any man do more unworthily towards a Friend? How can he possibly use him more barbarously, than to feast upon his living flesh and blood?" (Discourse against Transubstantiation, London 1684, 35).

Anglicans generally consider no teaching binding that, according to the Articles, "cannot be found in Holy Scripture or proved thereby", and are not unanimous in the interpretation of such passages as John, Chapter 6, and 1 Corinthians 11. Consequently, some Anglicans (especially Anglo-Catholics and some other High Church Anglicans) accept transubstantiation while others do not. In any case, nowadays even Church of England clergy are only required to assent that the 39 Articles have borne witness to the Christian faith.[57]