Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Questions regarding the Episcopelian Church Message-ID: Date: 29 May 90 07:40:08 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 30 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >I doubt that the non-use of "transubstantiation" has much to do with >disassociation with pagan philosophies. The men involved simply don't >believe in transubstantiation. Sorry, Joe, but I have to dissent. On the *official* level, we prefer "real presence" to "transsubstantiation" because we don't believe in the truth of the aristotlean language which is an integral part of the doctrine. The notions of "accident" and "substance" are not part of our philosophical language. It also isn't clear to us that it is necessary to explain the eucharist beyond real presence. If you look at what individual episcopalians believe, you will find every conceivable theory, including a fair number of *non*-"real presence" theories. You will find a fair sprinkling of believers in transsubstantiation. Personally, I find the theory implausible, but we've been through that before. The issue decided in the anglican churches has not been for or against transsubstantiation. The decision has been made that such a doctrine/theory is not needed at all. As far as the passage about "leaving father, mother, brother, sister, wife", I have looked up as many such passages as I could find, and only the passage in Luke mentions wives, and it does not say "leave", but "hate". -- C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace, + but strife closed in the sod. mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet let us pray for but one thing-- mimsy!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."