As a recent convert to Anglicanism, my priests and deacon have taught that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. When joining the church, they said that members needed to believe in some formula (Reformed, Lutheran, or Transubstantiation). This year the ACNA released a statement on their view of ordaining women, basically saying that they were heading away from that and that the view was incompatible with scripture (I remember a line saying the two sides of the issue are irreconcilable and that the women ordinations were in the extreme minority).

As a Catholic, I really don't have a dog in this fight, but it was good to see the issues expounded in such a clear and concise way. God bless you.

I am an Anglican deacon in California. While I appreciated most of what you said, it should be clarified that if there are any diocese in the ACNA that ordain women to the priesthood, they are few and far between in my work with five of our diocese, not one of them ordain’s women to the priesthood. They do ordain women to the diaconate. As an Anglican, I do believe that Christ is truly present in the sacrament. Please try not to overgeneralize what Anglicans believe.

For historical reasons, the early English reformers were more influenced by Geneva than by the Lutheran reformation in Germany. You correctly point out how this shows up in different historical understandings of the Eucharist. But getting to the deeper and more subtle influences of Calvinism on Anglican (and almost all other protestant churches rooted historically in England) and Episcopal thought is complicated and interesting. Balancing that is that both Lutheranism and Anglicanism (including Episcopalianism) evolved in their thinking over the centuries. Thus, your answering the question from the mid-1500s confessions is a useful but only partial story. Still, a very nice presentation.

Just viewing this video. Thank you. Very clear and Scriptural . God's Peace be with you.

Thank you for this clarity

Communion is for repentant sinners who know themselves to be great sinners and Christ as a great savior.

I believe the first book of homilies says that the body if Christ is truly present in the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine, which is much closer to the Lutheran view. Within Anglicanism there is a diversity of views, with many who hold to a more Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist.

I’m not sure how this fits in but I’m a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian church and we hold to the spiritual presence in communion yet we fence the table and warn of taking the supper in an unworthy manner and eating judgment unto oneself .

Let’s go Texas! Keeping the Bible first!

Interestingly, the Anglican priest whom the Ten Minute Bible Hour guy interviewed said exactly the same thing about communion that the Missouri Synod pastor whom he also interviewed said, namely that communion is truly the body and blood of Christ but that this transformation is a mystery. This priest also said that the communion is the actual body and blood of Christ whether or not the communicant truly believes it to be so and that communion is not open to anyone who wants to partake. Of course, he represents a certain branch of Anglicanism not in communion with the official church and which considers itself more "Catholic" than Church of England. Edit: typo and some more info

Not all Anglicans practice open communion. I grew up in an Anglican church and up until my confirmation received a blessing at the altar rail. The ACNA is not as orthodox as they claim to be, especially when it comes to ordination. Mostly because the big tent was more important than beliefs at their start.

Thanks for this. As a traditional (conservative) Anglican in England, I agree we are in an unsatisfactory, muddled situation regarding women's ordination. Alas!... I'd quibble, though, about characterising as "Calvinist" the C of E teaching on the Eucharist. I regard it as "Swiss", influenced by Bucer, not Zwingli, rather than Calvin.

I agree with my Orthodox brothers ...we had better put aside our differences and unite as one voice or the world will be even worse than it is.

Would you say that the chances of entering into full communion is higher with regard to the LCMS and the REC, which although retaining its own juridical personality, is a dounding jurisdiction of the ACNA?

I am a bit confused. I am a member of the LCMS, and I sometimes hear pastors describe the Eucharist as the physical Body and Blood of Christ, but I also hear some who are in Union with us say it is not physical but is a spiritual, but still bodily presence (the person who comes to mind here is Dr. Jordan Cooper in the AALC).

"In, with and under" is not physical presence. To say that we receive Christ by physically eating Him is childish. ""It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63 NAS) And it ignores the context of the Passover meal. Christ is our Passover and we receive Him by faith ALONE!

You have to be careful, the ACNA Is not a part of the anglican communion, the Episcopal Anglican Church is, and hence be careful when stating the 39 articles, they differ between Anglican Churches, so I would suggest you either mention either the Church of England, in which I am a priest, so have to put my head above the parapet , or specify a particular Anglican Church in the USA, that is in communion with the anglican communion

All the Episcopalian parishes I've been to believe in the actual physical presence. Also benediction with a monstrance. The 39 articles are not required. The pastor doesn't seem to be aware that most ACNA Clergy are Nashota House trained. A very high Anglo Catholic seminary. Infact more Catholic than the Pope .

If you say that Christ is corporately and truly present, and that eating the bread and drinking the wine constitutes eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, how is that different from transubstantiation (since I know Luther rejected transubstantiation)? Luther's view has always eluded me because it just seems to be transubstantian by other words.

As a UK/CofE Anglican, I definitely wouldn't take ACNA as the measuring rod for Anglicanism at large.

I have a couple questions..why would anyone allow someone to take communion if they're not believers/followers of Christ? Jesus was talking to His apostles at that time, when He said "this is my body & this is my blood"; He wasn't talking to the world.. am I wrong? Also, God tells us over and over not to drink any blood, so why is this okay? (i'm a follower of Jesus too, I just don't know any better.)

Actually, the ACNA and the NALC are in communion with one another. But there is a "but" - but the NALC is a Lutheran denomination that calls itself confessional even though it calls the Book of Concord a "legitimate" interpretation of scripture, which is NOT a truly confessional belief. Plus, it ordains women (again, not a truly confessional belief).

Im Lutheran but I have heard some Anglo-Catholics say that they basically hold the same view as luther in the Lords Supper, is this allowed?

There is a section of Anglicanism that accepts the real presence. And what about the Porto Agreement which is an act of union between The C of E and some Scandinavian Lutherans.

The 39 Articles are not dogmatic statements. My ACNA priest told me that christ is there in the Eucharist and it is really his body but that it is still bread and wine. Not merely bread and merely wine but bread that is Christ's body and wine that is Christ's blood because God, being God, can make anything part of his body.

As a Canadian Anglican, I always understood Holy Communion as being close to God. Whether Jesus is near or physically in the bread and wine is not as important as where your heart is.

CHRIST JESUS SAVES DELIVERS AND HEALS!

If I believe in the Real Presence, but I attend a service at a church that does not, is Christ present those elements?

Wait... The Formula, Epitome, article 7 is really clear that Christ is 'truly', 'really', 'essentially', 'substantially' present but NOT after a capernaitic/physical manner. affirmative point 6 states it's after a supernatural/heavenly manner. point 21 of the negative statements "utterly rejects and condemns" the view of a capernaitic/physical eating "as if flesh were torn by the teeth". And article 8 on the Person of Christ in the affirmative statements point 12 again expresses a complete rejection of physical, earthly, capernaitic presence.

I am following along a path that will probably result in becoming a Catholic so the issue of the sacrament is really fascinating to me. This pastor, and another Lutheran pastor I found on line, say they believe, "This is my body and blood," literally. Yet Lutherans say they do not believe in transubstantiation. Are we playing word games here? It's looks to me that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation. If you believe the passage literally, you believe that it's no longer a wafer and wine but body and blood of our Savior. Is it that Lutherans don't like the word "transubstantiation" because it sounds too Catholic? It really sounds to me like Lutherans and Catholics believe the same thing regarding the Lord's Supper.

If i cannot attend an LCMS church, what is the next best option?

Like your channel, doubt the teaching sometimes.

I’m confused…you said women can’t be ordained in the Lutheran faith but they are? 🤔

They are already in communion together. Episcopalians are welcome to take communion at any ALC church.

Another oversimplification of the Reformed view on the Eucharist. Just to clean up your explanation on Calvinistic Eucharistic Theology, which you clearly over simplify, we Reformed do believe in real presence. Unlike Catholics who believe in transubstantiation, or Lutherans who believe in consubstantiation, Calvin never defined what happens at the table. This is because Calvin was trying to find middle ground between Zwilgli and Luther. He agreed with Zwingli that faith must be central in any adequate doctrine of the Lord’s Supper; it is only by faith that we can receive a blessing. But Calvin’s heart was really much closer to Luther because Calvin believed deeply and passionately that the Lord’s Supper is God’s gift to us. It is primarily God who acts in the Lord’s Supper. God is the giver; we receive that gift. With great passion Calvin agreed with Luther that we must seek our redemption in the body and blood of Christ and in his sacrificial death. We are united to Christ in his body and blood by the Holy Spirit. But that union is so intense, so real that we can rightly say we are “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” (Institutes III, 1, 3, cf. Gen. 2:23). Calvin said that we are embodied in Christ, as Ephesians 5:30 declares: “We are members of his body.” That is where our redemption comes from, Calvin insisted. Salvation is that union with Christ. Calvin’s view, however, was not just that of a compromiser, taking bits and pieces from different people and fitting them together. He had his own distinct, important, and, I think, clear statement of what the Sacrament was about. First, he insisted that the Word is crucial. The preached Word makes the Sacrament intelligible, he said. It is only in union with the Word that we know the Lord’s blessing. It is only by the Spirit working through the Word that the blessing is ministered to us and sealed upon us. Yet-and this is the second point-the blessing is represented and presented to us in the bread and the wine. What are bread and wine? They are food, nourishment. So, says Calvin, that is what they represent spiritually; spiritual food. As by the mouth we receive bread and wine to the nourishment of our bodies, so by faith (which is the mouth of the soul) we receive the body and blood of Christ unto everlasting life. That food is Jesus Christ himself. We will only find life in Christ when we seek the substance of Christ in his flesh. For as soon as we depart from the sacrifice of his death we encounter nothing but death. In Christ’s flesh was accomplished man’s redemption. In it a sacrifice was offered to atone for sin in an obedience yielded to God to reconcile him to us. That flesh of Christ is our food, Calvin insists. We are to feed upon the Word, to be sure. But Calvin would say we must feed upon Christ too-on Jesus himself, who offers himself and all his benefits to us in the Supper-because it is only by being in and with Jesus that we can find redemption. That is why the Supper is so important to us, so central in our life. It draws us back to the center and heart of the gospel. It is, you see, a visible Word; and the visible Word declares to us that there is salvation only in the body and blood of Christ. That body and blood are not just once and for all offered on the cross as a past and finished thing, but that body and blood, that real Christ, continue to be the life-giving spirit among us. It is our present union with Christ that builds us up and strengthens us. It is only as we seek union with the true Christ that we can be built up in that way. Moreover, as Calvin says, that promise of communion with Christ is offered in the Sacrament to everyone. He says, “Truly he offers and shows the reality there signified to all who sit at that spiritual banquet, although it is received with benefit by believers alone, who accept such great generosity with true gratefulness of heart” (Institutes, IV, 17, 10). He says that the Sacrament is like rain from heaven. It comes down as the offer and promise of God of new life in Christ. But, like rain, it falls on different kinds of ground. When it hits ground prepared by faith it comes as blessing, nourishment, and a source of growth. When it hits the hard rock of unbelief, it is still the same offer and promise, but it flows away with no profit to the soul (see Institutes, IV, 17, 33). Faith remains crucial to Calvin’s doctrine. It is only the faithful who know Christ. But when the faithful come to the table, they meet Christ himself. What Christ represents in the bread and wine he presents to faith as life-giving nourishment of his own flesh.

As an Anglican, I was taught that sacraments are "outward and visible" signs of "inward and spiritual" truths. You kinda misled your viewers on this.

Why did Pieper think Christian could not endorce the Copernican Cosmos ?

I grew up Lutheran. But i never thought about an unbeliever actually eating the body of Christ. I think my poorly considered view has been more in line with Anglican teaching. I wonder how many Lutherans are closet Anglicans?

The 39 articles were a product of the day and does not mean that Anglicans follow them. There is a whole spectrum of belief in what happens at communion from receptionism as you describe to that closer to taught by Catholics. We have an open table in as far as all baptised and confirmed Christians can partake. Those who are not can only have a blessing. In many ways the two churches are actually similar in practice. Many Anglicans do believe in some form of real presence although it is often poorly defined as no one knows what really happens at communion and how Jesus feeds us spiritually. Anglicans now ordain to all three orders of clergy

That's how we do not performe in India , We do not share communion with every church ,we only do with Main line protestant and Roman Catholic .I never seen anybody without confirmation can have Communion.

You assertions are not fully - much less - respectfully considered. To exclude the actual liturgy - as well as liturgical practice - only offers up a partial rendering of the Anglican tradition - which is a big umbrella - not uniform but certainly Catholic in its utter and absolute universality. You can say, without doubt, that the 39 Articles function collectively as a Protestant testament - but the liturgy in the Prayer Book - especially the various forms of the Celebration of the Eucharist - is absolutely Catholic - and by that I mean, Orthodox Catholic. A Roman Catholic and Anglican Commission on Church Unity - DO YOUR OWN GOOGLE SEARCH - concluded re: the doctrine of Holy Communion - that the two bodies' belief re: the Sacrament of the Eucharist were basically in agreement. The early Anglicans wanted to have their cake - independence from Rome, defiance to it as presented in the 39 Articles - and have it, too - retainment of the episcopacy, all the Sacraments of the Church as well as its ancient liturgical forms. But this conflicted binary that defines the Church resulted from politics more than actual spirituality. Generally speaking - and there are always exceptions, but generally speaking, when you delve into the life of the Anglican Church - its people, its polity, how it perceives its mission in the world, the Anglican Church is far more Catholic than Protestant. This is my opinion, of course. But I am a confirmed Episcopalian. On some level, it's really kind of hard to justify the existence of the Anglican Communion, but truly, some form of orthodox Christianity has to present a table big enough to welcome every living soul a place to sit at it - women, gay and trans people - the Episcopal Church is a come-as-you-are religious body - we believe that Christ turns no one away - and this idea of openness and inclusion is how we celebrate Gospel teaching and try to spread it as far as we can. At the end of the day, God is love, as St. John proclaims, and everything - all theology - much less the disagreements about it - are a footnote to that. Peace. And love of God through Christ Jesus!

My father was Baptist and my mother was raised in The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (aka The Episcopal Church). I was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church but enjoy listening to all traditions, but knowing that the one, true Christian tradition is Anglican. Actually, Episcopal clergy have told me that Anglicans do not believe in this. I just wanted to be funny. It didn't work! God bless you all!

To me this underscores the problem with having SO MANY denominations each with their own interpretations and beliefs on scripture and holy communion and why church authority is crucial and join either the Catholic or Orthodox church. The Church was never meant to be fragmented- at least not this fragmented.

The anglican understand of "spiritual presense" is not a denial of the real objective presense of Christ actual body and blood. Indeed, his real corpus is present. It is the Holy Spirit that makes his corpus present to us, thus "spiritual presense". What is present is corporeal but how it is present is non-corporeal. It is indeed a mystery on how the holy spirit does this. Spiritual presense does not mean that Christ body is a spirit (gnostic), it does not mean figuratively or symbolic (zwinglian), nor does it mean that his body is present soley in the subjective reception (mere receptionism). Article 28 clearly says that his body is "given" , which means that it is objectively present. For you can only offer that which is objectively present. It is also true that Anglican doctrine is not just found in the 39 articles but also in our liturgy. Our eucharistic liturgy quite clearly teaches the real presense of Christ body in the sacrament. Also the Anglican article 28 statement that the "...body and blood of Christ is received and eaten in the supper by faith" implies that there is a corpus there prior to receiving by faith. Confessional Lutherans have a problem with this statement because of their particular view of the mode of presense. (The Lutheran view is that the body and blood of Christ is hypostastically inseparatbly united to the consecrated elements so that when Anyone eats/drinks via the mouth the consecrated bread/wine than He/she eats/drinks via the mouth the body/blood of Christ regardless of belief or unbelief) But this statement in anglican article 28 is actually in full accordance with what Jesus said, " Who ever eats my flesh and drinks by blood has eternal life" John 6. It is the the lutheran view runs contrary to what Jesus said because they believe that one can/does eat/drink his flesh/blood and still can be damned in contradiction to what Jesus actually said in John 6. I neeed to also point Article 29 uses the term "partakers" which clarifies that that the reception found in article 28 infers the benefiting from the christ body and blood. It derives from the same word in the Corinthian passage. May I suggest where Lutherans and Anglicans differ the most is that Lutherans are more emphatic on particular understanding on the how Christ is present (and emphasis that goes beyond scripture) where Anglicans are more emphatic on the actual partaking of real Body/blood of Christ. Here I believe we Anglicans are more scriptural sound. Christ did not say this is my body, take and eat. Instead, he said take and eat this is my body. In regards to open communion, Anglican do not allow for a free for all approach to the Lord's table. The prayer book has both an exhortation and even a discipline that puts up proper fences when it comes to partaking in communion. That said, it is true we do not deny communion to other baptized believers that are not anglican. The weight is actually on confessional lutherans who put up an artificial barrier that is not found in scripture. We are practicing catholicity instead of sectarnism when it comes to the Lord's table. The Anglican approach to "open" communion is not a denial of differences nor is it a denial that we are not in full communion with one another. But it is an affirmation and hopefulness to seek oneness (was that not Jesus prayer?) and that we can practice "a" oneness, though imperfect, around the Lord's table. Lutheranism, which affirms the paradox of simultaneousnly being sinner and saint, should be able to affirm this paradox as well. On the issue of Women's ordination to priesthood, I am an Anglican who agrees with the Confessional Lutherans on this. However, the pastor in the video is not fully accurate on the Anglican Church of North America's position on this issue. The ACNA allows for each Diocese to decide on this issue. There are ACNA diocese that approve and others that don't. The majority of ACNA bishops do not support the WO. There was 2017 statement from the ACNA college of Bishops on the WO. The statement clearly states "We agree that there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women's ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the province." The statement clearly does not lean to WO. However, I fully acknowledge the inconsistency in what is said and what is being permittedat this time. It is my hope and prayer that the ACNA continues to move in the right direction

If true "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.", then the meaning of communion and the presenace Jesus is defined by the individual soul. Just as you cannot provide your defination, nor can you disprovide it: a matter of individual belief. At one service during Christmas eve, my daughter asked if her friends could take communion to experience the meaning of Christmas and Christmas traditions. My response was the following "I really do not think God cares whether you are an Anglican or a Lutheran, but he is delighted that children want to come to him and Jesus." I rather encourage, expose, and support children to know God and love him, then push them away from him.

I just want to clarify something. Your title says "Anglicans" but you are speaking about ACNA Anglicans. I am an Anglican, a Continuing Church Anglican (there are several, some are The Anglican Catholic Church, The Province of Christ the King...there are 9 or so in the USA) and what you say about Anglicanism does not represent us. On many points, but to start, one must be confirmed by a Bishop in the Apostolic Succession to receive communion in my church, we have a high-church view of the sacrament (we strongly are not Calvinist) we do not ordain women at all...females can't serve at the altar at all.

You sound very much like Lutheran Missouri Synod minister....you do not sound like a mainline Lutheran.

But Lutherans don't have bishops(in apostolic succession).

I used to think I could be Lutheran but I guess not.

ACANA is NOT part of the Episcopal Church.

G-D FORGIVES YOUR SIN NOT YOUR EXCUSES!

This video was full of errors about confessional Anglicans. You should do additional research and remake this video.

I gave Protestantsm a try but decided Catholic Church. It seemed to me that Protestants were Bible only "Christians ", they didn't like to look at church history especially the Early Apostolic father's, the early Christians taught by the Apostles, the Martyr's like Ignatius of Antiouch. When speaking and attending Protestant churches I had these top 10 questions and never got an answer maybe you can answer for some clariry. 1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book? 2. Where I'm the New Testament do the Apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book? 3. How do we know who wrote the the books we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1,2, and 3 John? 4. .On what authority or on what principle would we accept as Scripture books that we know we're not written by one of the twelve Apostles . 5.Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals? 6. How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctly Catholic doctrines such as Apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration etc..? 7. If Christianity is a book religion how did it flourish and survive during the first 1500 years of church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate? 8. If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a religion of the book why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press? 9. If the early church believed in protestant Sola scriptura why do the creeds of the early church say, " we believe in the Holy Catholic Church" and not, we believe in Holy scripture"? 10. If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestanism say to the world?

The Anglican Church is not a "confessional" church in the sense that Lutheranism or other mainstream Calvinist churches are. As the 21st Article states: General Councils may err. The 39 Articles were not even a creation of a General Council but a result of a particular Convocation and need to be seen in that historical perspective. Only the clergy were ever required to assent to them. They need to be read alongside other Anglican statements such as the liturgy itself and the catechism. The Articles were written prior to the decrees of the Council of Trent and were not addressing what became the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church but current theological opinions and popular practices. They certainly were influenced by Calvinism but stepped back from the extreme expression of it. Most, but not all, Anglicans would subscribe to Real Presence. Anglicanism does not have the doctrinal clarity of the Roman Catholic Church, confessional Lutherans or Calvinists - but Anglicans would argue that this doctrinal "all knowingness" and the urge to define and codify doctrine was a product of the Reformation and not necessarily a beneficial one - as the ever dividing and fragmented church provides plenty of evidence.

Pastor, I am appalled. The confession of sin required by an Anglican prior to receiving our lord, demonstrates a clear absence of Paul's teaching of justification by faith. From the liturgy " knowing we are not worthy to gather up the crumbs from under the master's table. " These are carnal Christian's. Paul or Apollos makes it clear , Heb5, 6 about babes in Christ, these dear people just dont know. If you notice at the Lord' table, the disciples received without the confession of their sin. Nor does this debasement

Calvinists do believe that Christ is truly present in the supper. We merely take issue with your effort to equate "true" with "physical/local/corporeal." Why is Christ's spiritual presence any less real? In fact, given that you must assign Jesus's divine attributes to His humanity in order to hold to your view, I would contend that it's the Lutherans who, in the final analysis, reject the "true" presence of Christ.

I would look to the ELCA, not the LCMS, as the measure of the Lutheran Church in America. They are the larger church and have the ongoing Reformation, allow women reverends, local differences on minor issues, etc. They still teach the real presence in the Eucharist, at least they did when I was in college.

The difference is Lutherans will end up in the 8th circle of hell and the Anglicans the 9th unless they come back to the True Catholic Church.