39 Articles in regard to transubstantiation

So Mommy has deemed me “plain wrong” in regards to Anglican condemnation (or lack of condemnation) on transubstantiation citing one of the 39 Articles. I figured she would…

The Article in question reads as follows:

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. (Article XXVIII)

Despite the fact that many Anglicans see transubstantiation as condemned by this Article, I do not think the argument holds weight. There is another controversial Article in there as well that reads as follows:

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (Article XXV)

Article XXV though in itself seems inherently contradictory. Either the five sacraments of confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction are of the corrupt following of the Apostles or they aren’t. Thus, it is clear that further expounding on the meaning of the 39 Articles is necessary such that only an individual can legitimately decipher whether Article XXVIII actually condemns transubstantiation or not. But Anglicanism is not an individualistic faith, it is part of the ancient tradition of the Church and therefore, the 39 Articles are to be understood and read in light of the ancient tradition of the Church. Seeing as the ancient tradition of the Church has never condemned transubstantiation, it isn’t Anglicanism’s right to condemn transubstantiation either. Therefore, Article XXVIII must be interpreted with some other meaning than the one given by Mommy and does not condemn transubstantiation. There may be Anglicans who think that this Article justifies the condemnation of transubstantiation but they have taken on themselves the Spirit of Pride and Rebellion toward the Church as a whole and are in need of thorough correction on this matter.

I stand with the Anglicans affirming the historic Church as a whole. I shall not associate myself with prideful rebellion against the Church. To do so, I am not certain if I could count myself as a Christian if I did.


About newenglandsun

A student. Male. Passionate. Easily offended. Child-like wonderer. Growing in faith, messing up daily.
This entry was posted in I'm Lazy. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s