Why Anglicans Reject Transubstantiation

River Devereux explains why the Anglican formularies uphold the real presence in the Eucharist, but not in a corporal presence and why they reject belief in transubstantiation.

DISCLAIMER: After speaking with Christian Wagner of Apologia Anglicana I no longer believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation means there is a physical/corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however, since many Eucharistic theologies do still believe this I stand by the critiques offered in this video.

For clarification on some points about transubstantiation, see this:

For clarification on my own position, see this:

For more content visit:

Check out my conversation with Fr. James Gad (Barely Protestant) in response to this video:

Related articles:

Social media:

[andreflorinwyss]

It's so rare to find Anglican apologetics, the difference between transubstantiation and co-substantiation is very well explained

[xifangyangren]

That is the most straightforward, clear, and concise explanation I have heard anywhere on YouTube

[michaelkingsbury]

Having read Scripture Augustine, some of Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and the Easstern Fathers I got exhausted and finally just accepted the 39 Articles as the simple clear basis for dogmatic belief. Still working on the Life in Faith. Keep it up boyo and lead with your left.

[ChristChurchAnglican]

Good stuff! Thank you for creating very good content--explaining the Reformation and Patristic theology we received regarding our Eucharist. Steve+

[keithdavies]

I myself an Anglican enjoyed this video. It broadens my mind, Its videos like these that gives one a good understanding of the Eucharist. Thank you

[brotherluis]

And furthermore, the ARCIC has agreed that Anglicans and Roman Catholics (as related to the presence) believe the same with different wording and that our views are congruent while being expressed in different forms (of course we have other issues as how the sacrament is exercised i.e. ordination of women) but the matter of the real presence is not a church dividing issue among us.

[BradN]

Great video, thank you. As someone who's new to the Anglican tradition, your videos are immensely helpful to me.

[williamscandlyn]

Your explanation is very much what I was taught as a Presbyterian, a spiritual real presence. I hold to that truth but think communion remains a mystery more easily experienced than defined.

[cullanfritts]

good. I’m seriously considering conservative Anglicanism right now (like Gafcon) and this just makes me swell with joy.

[Anna_Marie_Music]

Yet again, another awesome video. Thank you!!

[Ben_G_Biegler]

This is best concise video about the Anglican view of the Eucharist ive found thankyou

[robertbowman]

Thank you, River. An excellent, simple explanation of our Anglican theology.

[woodfin]

Good teaching and excellent historical breakdown. Thank you.

[heatherslining]

It is so good to hear young people worshiping God.

[wd]

I believe in Transubstantiation. I believe Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine when consecrated and this becomes the actual body and blood of Christ.

[joshuajacob]

Thanku so much dear brother...
It's so much helpful for me to understand the Eucharist

[Neil.Swinnerton]

Many thanks for this excellent presentation. As a fellow anglican, I would add that many in the classic tradition also see the eucharist as a memorial presentation of bread and wine in praise and worship to God - this is the "...did command us to continue... a perpetual memory" of the 1662 BCP. Also, it is my understanding that educated Lutherans (e.g. Dr Jordan Cooper) do not use (and in fact would reject) the term "consubtantiation" - I think they would use the term "sacramental union" instead.

[colinlavelle]

Call it what you will whether it be transubstantiation or whatever but as far as I'm aware the mojority of christians believe in the true (corporal) presence in the Eucharist. That takes in Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, all the Orthodox Churches, Lutherans & most Anglo-Catholic (Anglicans). Any comments please?

[clivejames]

Genuine question here: You say that there is evidence that the Jews would have rejected transubstantiation if they had known about it but they did - John 6:60 tells us that the Disciples did indeed reject Christ's teaching when they said "this is a hard teaching, who can accept it"? and many walked away. At no point did Christ say "hey, come back, it's only a spiritual symbol". Just wondering, as I'm trying to figure this out, what you think was going on in John 6:60? Many thanks.

[edelineambas]

Amen. God bless you, and the Anglican Communion.