Questions Answered – March 2025

Do Anglicans Believe in the Real Presence?

Question: Dear Father Cush, thank you for answering the question about what the Lutherans believe concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Surely, the Episcopal Church USA and the rest of the Anglican Communion believe in the same theology as we as Catholics do. Am I correct?

Answer: Thanks for your question and it is indeed a good question for us to reflect as we continue this year of Eucharistic Revival. Well, we as Catholics actually do not believe in the same concept of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species. It is important for us to recognize these differences.

The Anglican understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist occupies a nuanced and inclusive position, encompassing a range of beliefs that emphasize both reverence for the mystery of Christ’s presence and a rejection of specific dogmatic explanations. Anglicans generally affirm that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist but often allow for a diversity of theological interpretations within that belief.

The Anglican tradition holds that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but it avoids defining how this presence occurs. This emphasis on mystery is captured in the Anglican saying that Christ is “really present in a way that is spiritual and sacramental.” In the words of the sixteenth-century theologian Richard Hooker, the faithful receive “His true and real Presence” without a necessity for “particular mode or manner.”

Anglicanism generally allows for a range of views, including perspectives close to Catholic transubstantiation (the belief in a substantial change of the bread and wine) and those similar to Lutheran sacramental union (Christ’s presence “in, with, and under” the elements). Some Anglicans might even hold to a more Calvinist “spiritual presence” view, where Christ is spiritually, though not physically, present in the sacrament.

A historically significant view in Anglican theology, Receptionism, holds that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist depends upon the faith of the communicant. According to this view, while the bread and wine do not undergo a change in substance, believers who receive the elements in faith do truly receive Christ’s body and blood spiritually. The Anglican liturgy reflects a deep reverence for the Eucharist, often conveying the sense of mystery surrounding the Real Presence. Many Anglican churches incorporate practices like kneeling for Communion and adoration during the service, emphasizing a sacred encounter with Christ. The official doctrinal standard for the Anglican Church, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1563), state that “the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” (Article 28). This language suggests a sacramental, rather than a literal, transformation of the elements, implying that the mode of Christ’s presence is ultimately a mystery.

Many Anglicans understand the Eucharist as a true participation in the body and blood of Christ through the Holy Spirit, who makes the sacrament effective. The term Eucharist (meaning “thanksgiving”) is often emphasized to focus on gratitude for Christ’s gift of himself to the Church through this meal.

Within Anglicanism, especially among High Church and Anglo-Catholic groups, beliefs about the Real Presence tend to be closer to Catholic views, often incorporating elements like Eucharistic adoration and Benediction. These groups may adopt practices that reflect a deep sense of Christ’s ongoing presence, even outside the celebration of the Eucharist.

Overall, Anglicanism honors the Real Presence while encouraging theological diversity and reverence. By affirming Christ’s true presence without rigidly defining its mode, the Anglican tradition seeks to remain faithful to scripture and tradition, preserving the mystery of the Eucharist as a central and profound act of worship.

In this year of the Eucharistic revival, I would urge you to please read Pope Saint Paul VI’s encyclical of September 3, 1965 “Mysterium Fidei.” Pope Saint Paul VI is one of the great popes of recent times and we need, as a Church, to re-learn to appreciate his wisdom.

“Filioque” and the Catholic-Orthodox Split

Question: What is the filioque controversy? Is this the reason why we as Catholics are not in union with the Orthodox Church?

Answer: Thank you for this thoughtful question. It seems like we are getting more and more questions concerning ecumenical theology and I am very pleased about that. The call to Christian unity is an imperative of the Lord, as we read about in John’s Gospel “Ut unum sint,” “that they might be one.

The Filioque controversy is a major theological disagreement that contributed to the split between the Roman Catholic (Western) and Eastern Orthodox (Eastern) churches. It centers on the phrase “and the Son” (Filioque in Latin), which the Western Church added to the Nicene Creed to say that the Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son.

The original Creed, established in the fourth century, stated that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” The Western Church’s addition of Filioque emphasized the unity and equality of the Father and the Son, partly to counter beliefs that subordinated the Son to the Father. In contrast, the Eastern Church kept the original wording, believing it preserved the unique role of the Father as the source within the Trinity. They saw the addition as a disruption to the balance of the Trinity.

This difference became a key point of contention, leading to further misunderstandings fueled by cultural, linguistic, and political differences between the East and West. It contributed significantly to the Great Schism of 1054, in which both churches formally separated when envoys of Pope Leo IX and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, excommunicated each other. This mutual excommunication marked the official beginning of the Great Schism, formally dividing the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Since then, there have been attempts to bridge this divide, with recent efforts recognizing that the Filioque issue may be more about differences in emphasis and language than deep theological conflict. The Catholic Church now recognizes the original creed without Filioque as legitimate and is open to dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Church on this matter.

There’s so much more on why the two Churches are not united. Here are some of the other reasons. The Western Church held that the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, had authority over all Christians. The Eastern Church believed in a more equal relationship among the bishops of major Christian centers (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with no single bishop having authority over the others. The Eastern Church respected the Pope as the “first among equals” but rejected the idea of his supreme authority.

The Western Church used Latin, while the Eastern Church used Greek. This language divide, combined with different cultural backgrounds, led to misunderstandings and mistrust. The Latin-speaking West and Greek-speaking East gradually developed different liturgical practices, theological language, and spiritual emphases.

Political divisions also played a significant role. As the Roman Empire split into the Western (Roman) Empire and the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, so too did the Church begin to diverge. The two regions had different rulers, and loyalty to local political leaders sometimes influenced religious alliances. The rise of the Byzantine Empire in the East and the shifting power dynamics of the Western European kingdoms further fueled division.

Differences in religious practices also contributed to the split. For example, the use of leavened versus unleavened bread in the Eucharist differed between East and West.

There is dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church internationally through the Vatican, nationally through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and locally, on the diocesan and perhaps even on the parochial level.