The Anglicans didn't really take the 'purely symbolic' view even though Cranmer leaned in that direction. The most common view in Anglicanism has been (and still is) that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist in a Spiritual and Sacramental sense, but is not corporally present since His corporal body is in heaven. But as you say, Anglicanism is broad and is widely accepting of a range of views concerning the Eucharist; someone who believes in Christ's Real and Substantial (corporal) Presence could communicate alongside someone who holds a symbolic/memorialist view, and the two are brethren. The church does not anathematize either one. One thing which the Anglican Church does teach against, however, is the practice of worshiping the Eucharist along with the associated elevations and processions, for the basic reason that the First Commandment forbids Christians from utilizing any man-made objects or images for the purpose of bowing down to or worshiping them. Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." Is the _image_ of bread a 'graven' (man-made) image? Yes, it is. May we render worship toward graven images? No, it is forbidden. Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God." Is the host in the monstrance a 'standing image' set up for people to kneel and worship toward it as their god? Yes, it is. The fact that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist is viewed as 'beside the point,' because of the Commandment. *The essence of idolatry is: **_making an object which is intended to represent God, then declaring it to be God and directing worship toward the visible image of the object._* Every idolater truly believes that the image he uses in worship really is his God, otherwise why would he do it? God wants all people to avoid this practice. To the Anglican, it is morally repugnant to render worship toward the visible image of man-made bread even though Christ is Present. For the Catholic who believes in Transubstantiation, the bread's substance is gone and Christ is Substantially Present, however the _man-made image_ of bread unavoidably remains.
It doesn't matter what these prideful so called reformers believed, its what Jesus said to his disciples. This IS my body. Verily, verily I say to you, whoever does not eat my flesh and drink my blood has no life in him. Do they think Jesus was lying! There have been many Eucharistic miracles through the centuries. The most famous being the miracle of Lanciano in the 7th century. For those of the Sola Scriptura brigade, the bible was compiled by the Catholic church in the 4th century from knowledge handed down from sacred tradition.
Easy to reject transubstantiation, is UNbiblical. Also, It requires the priest to ask God for that transubstantiation to happen. Yet again. We don't know if that was granted. What we know is what is written. MATTHEW 18:20 For where two or three GATHER IN MY NAME, there am I with them.”
Transubstantiation was a word coined by St Thomas Aquinas, the Eucharist is referenced in John 6. Your quote from Matthew is more in relation to people gathering in prayer or worship. The transubstantiation happens because the Holy Spirit flows through the priest and changes the bread and wine into the living body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Completely incorrect, The Eucharist is not cannibalism because it is a sacramental, supernatural participation in Christ’s glorified body and blood. It transcends mere physical consumption and is an act of faith that unites believers with the life-giving power of Jesus' sacrifice. Cannibalism involves destruction and violence, while the Eucharist brings life, grace, and communion with God.
The Anglicans didn't really take the 'purely symbolic' view even though Cranmer leaned in that direction. The most common view in Anglicanism has been (and still is) that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist in a Spiritual and Sacramental sense, but is not corporally present since His corporal body is in heaven. But as you say, Anglicanism is broad and is widely accepting of a range of views concerning the Eucharist; someone who believes in Christ's Real and Substantial (corporal) Presence could communicate alongside someone who holds a symbolic/memorialist view, and the two are brethren. The church does not anathematize either one.
One thing which the Anglican Church does teach against, however, is the practice of worshiping the Eucharist along with the associated elevations and processions, for the basic reason that the First Commandment forbids Christians from utilizing any man-made objects or images for the purpose of bowing down to or worshiping them.
Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
Is the _image_ of bread a 'graven' (man-made) image? Yes, it is. May we render worship toward graven images? No, it is forbidden.
Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."
Is the host in the monstrance a 'standing image' set up for people to kneel and worship toward it as their god? Yes, it is.
The fact that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist is viewed as 'beside the point,' because of the Commandment. *The essence of idolatry is: **_making an object which is intended to represent God, then declaring it to be God and directing worship toward the visible image of the object._* Every idolater truly believes that the image he uses in worship really is his God, otherwise why would he do it? God wants all people to avoid this practice. To the Anglican, it is morally repugnant to render worship toward the visible image of man-made bread even though Christ is Present. For the Catholic who believes in Transubstantiation, the bread's substance is gone and Christ is Substantially Present, however the _man-made image_ of bread unavoidably remains.
It doesn't matter what these prideful so called reformers believed, its what Jesus said to his disciples. This IS my body. Verily, verily I say to you, whoever does not eat my flesh and drink my blood has no life in him. Do they think Jesus was lying! There have been many Eucharistic miracles through the centuries. The most famous being the miracle of Lanciano in the 7th century. For those of the Sola Scriptura brigade, the bible was compiled by the Catholic church in the 4th century from knowledge handed down from sacred tradition.
Easy to reject transubstantiation, is UNbiblical.
Also, It requires the priest to ask God for that transubstantiation to happen. Yet again. We don't know if that was granted.
What we know is what is written.
MATTHEW 18:20
For where two or three GATHER IN MY NAME, there am I with them.”
You protestants are so heretic
Transubstantiation was a word coined by St Thomas Aquinas, the Eucharist is referenced in John 6. Your quote from Matthew is more in relation to people gathering in prayer or worship. The transubstantiation happens because the Holy Spirit flows through the priest and changes the bread and wine into the living body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Think about it. No matter what fancy name you give eating the wafer, it represents the ancient practice of cannibalism.
Completely incorrect, The Eucharist is not cannibalism because it is a sacramental, supernatural participation in Christ’s glorified body and blood. It transcends mere physical consumption and is an act of faith that unites believers with the life-giving power of Jesus' sacrifice. Cannibalism involves destruction and violence, while the Eucharist brings life, grace, and communion with God.