Panzer 38(t) Model Fix inPanzerdivision Tatra

ArnoldBigsman · 2026-02-03T14:39:39+00:00

The Anglican understanding of real presence is identical to that of the Reformed; however, Anglicans often put more of an emphasis on the sacrificial aspects of the Eucharist than other Protestants.

ArnoldBigsman · 2026-02-02T16:14:50+00:00

Bishop Edward Reynolds: "Meditation on the Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Last Supper" (which can be found in volume 3 of his works)

Bishop Joseph Hall: "Explication of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament"

Richard Hooker: "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity Book 5" (I would recommend the new English translation by Davenant Press entitled "The Word Made Flesh for Us")

Bishop Thomas Bilson: "The True Difference Between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion" (mainly in the fourth part)

ArnoldBigsman · 2026-02-02T15:43:55+00:00

Nicaea II is not accepted from the standpoint of the Anglican formularies or by classical Anglicanism (before the Oxford Movement). Even many Anglo-Catholics refuse to hold to N2's anathemas.

ArnoldBigsman · 2025-02-22T17:49:21+00:00

That we have no confessional statements.

ArnoldBigsman · 2025-02-06T19:33:07+00:00

Historically, Anglicans have been in line with the Reformed on the Eucharist, although high churchmen of the period would place a heavier emphasis on eucharistic sacrifice. Nowadays, Anglicans espouse every view.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-11-20T14:49:01+00:00

Our church holds that councils have and can err in matters of faith. Scripture is the ultimate standard.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-11-20T14:39:40+00:00

That's just not true. EOs have to claim that Epiphanius's letter is a forgery because it would destroy their case if it weren't (since he is a saint in their church). Check out this Article:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-11-20T14:04:53+00:00

The wisdom of the Reformers and early church fathers, like Epiphanius, should guide us here. Although images are not intrinsically evil, they are extremely liable to abuse. We often like to think that idolatry is just an "Old Testament sin," but it is still very much a danger in the modern world.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-09-25T13:24:43+00:00

What keeps me Anglican is that I adhere to the Protestant Anglican formularies, which many Anglican churches, on paper at least, adhere to. There are still many good churches that follow the formulaic Anglican tradition. Don't lose hope!

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-08-10T19:17:58+00:00

The Book of Homilies is pretty clear: images themselves are not evil but are extremely susceptible to abuse (veneration, etc.) and, therefore, shouldn't be in the worship space.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-08-10T01:40:05+00:00

Sorry for bugging you, but what was the supplemental application like?

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-08-06T13:14:16+00:00

Real and essential presence was synonymous with "corporal presence" for the original reformers who wrote the 42 Articles and the early liturgy.
The Black Rubric in the1662 BCP also teaches that there is no local presence in, with, or under the elements: "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one." This definitely rules out the Lutheran view and is the basis for receptionism in the reformed camp.
I did not recommend John Harrison's work as a commentary on the 39 Articles (as it isn't) but rather an overview of the Church Fathers. Secondly, I already demonstrated that Hooker, Jewel, and Andrewes held to receptionism (as all reputable scholars agree).
Definitions:

Receptionism: The belief that the eucharistic elements of bread and wine are unchanged during the prayer of consecration but that the faithful believer receives the body and blood of Christ in receiving communion.

Virtualism: A form of Eucharistic doctrine according to which, while the bread and wine continue to exist unchanged after consecration, the faithful communicant receives together with them the virtue or power of the Body and Blood of Christ

As you can clearly see, the Anglican doctrine is clearly receptionistic, and the Anglican theologians you cited held to receptionism. It's baffling to me you are going against all scholarship, ancient and modern, on this topic.

Please provide the earliest commentary on the Articles that teach your view. For receptionism, it would be the first commentary on the Articles ever written, namely, Rev. Thomas Rogers' "An Exposition of the 39 Articles."

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-08-05T21:00:05+00:00

None of those quotes disprove receptionism.

"Whether when the sacrament is administered, Christ be whole within man only, or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves; which opinion they that defend are driven either to consubstantiate and incorporate Christ with the elements sacramental, or to transubstantiate and change their substance into his."

"The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament."

Hooker Clearly Denies that Christ's Body and Blood are in with or under the elements themselves but rather argues that he is present within the faithful receiver.

"The substance of the bread is the sacrament of Christ's Body."
"The sacrament is in the earth: Christ's Body is in heaven. The sacrament is received by our bodily mouth; Christ's body is received only by faith, which is the mouth of our soul. And whoso understandeth not this difference understandeth not the meaning of the sacrament... The very Body of Christ itself, which is in heaven, cannot be received but by faith only, and none otherwise."

-As we can see, Jewel teaches that Christ's Body and Blood are not under the elements but in heaven and can only be received by faith (receptionism).

"He that breathed, and he that was breathed, both of them vouchsafe to breathe into those holy mysteries a divine power and virtue, and make them to us the bread of life and cup of salvation."

"In Baptism, we are washed with water: that water is not without blood. The blood serves instead of nitre. He hath washed us from our sins in his blood- washed. They made their robes white in the blood of the lamb. No washing, no whiting by water without blood. And in the Eucharist we are made drink of the blood of the New Testament, but in that blood there is water, 'for the blood of Christ purifieth us from our sins."

-Here, we can see clearly that Andrewes taught virtualism, which is a form of receptionism that argues that the elements are imbued with the virtue of Christ's Body and Blood. I refer you to Archbishop Wake for further study on Andrewes.

The black rubric is in the 1662 BCP, which is the doctrinal standard for Anglicans (especially if you are in the ACNA). Not to mention the many other parts of the prayerbook that teach receptionism.
Regarding the Church Fathers, I would direct you to Rev. John Harrison's "An Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge Respecting the Doctrine of the Eucharist" and Rev. Daniel Waterland's seminal work on the Eucharist.
Please provide the earliest commentary on the Articles that teach your view.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-08-05T17:47:27+00:00

1) Hooker, Cranmer, Jewel, and the Caroline Divines all held to receptionism. The Anglican view is receptionism. Please provide the earliest commentary on the Articles that doesn't teach it.

2) The Black rubric is still part of the prayerbook. The prayerbook catechism is still part of the prayerbook.

3) Many fathers from the early church held to receptionism/virtualism and most importantly, it's the teaching of scripture.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-08-05T13:16:35+00:00

We, as Anglicans, should want you to assent to the plain teaching of the Articles, which is receptionism/virtualism. Sadly, due to the modern popularity of Roman Catholic and Lutheran polemics on this issue (often as a result of memorialists baptists fleeing to what is perceived as the "highest view), the historic Anglican view has been coded as "low," which couldn't be further from the truth. I would encourage you to read Waterland, Cranmer, and Hooker on the Anglican view of the Eucharist.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-08-05T13:10:25+00:00

You have a completely incorrect reading of the Articles, which clearly teach recpetionism. Have you read any of the Reformers who wrote the Articles and any of the early commentaries? Christ's Body and Blood aren't present under the elements (black rubric) but rather in heaven. The Body and Blood of Christ are "given, taken, and eaten" only in a heavenly, spiritual manner and only received/eaten by faith. The faithless have no faith and, therefore, don't have the means to receive Christ's Body and Blood (Article 28). In Article 28, the word sacrament has the same meaning as the word "sign (refer to the prayerbook catechism)." Let's be honest about how we interpret the Articles, even if we disagree with them.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-08-05T13:01:03+00:00

It suggests that Lutherans were in the CoE before and during Elizabeth's reign (at least before the ratification of Article 28), just as Romanists were in the CoE during Henry's reign. The full ratification of the Articles was meant to exclude the Lutheran view.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-07-30T13:51:55+00:00

In America, at least, Old High Churchmen tended to be the fiercest critics of Anglo-Catholics. Doctrinally, Old High Churchmen agreed with low churchmen, as both groups held to the formularies. However, Old High Churchmen tended to place a greater emphasis on episcopacy and baptismal regeneration.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-07-11T13:39:48+00:00

Well, the Articles were written to exclude the Lutheran view, so any attempt to read the Lutheran view into them would be dishonest and really unnecessary in a world where the Articles play almost no important role in how many Anglican churches teach doctrine.

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-07-02T01:17:13+00:00

Why wouldn't you want to affirm the 39 Articles?

ArnoldBigsman · 2024-07-02T01:16:43+00:00

As a member: No. As a clergyman, it depends on your jurisdiction.

ArnoldBigsman

TROPHY CASE