Yes, actually that is why I took pains to say "locally present," to stay away from the more generic concept of God's omnipresence (thus I was differentiating from panentheism). I was not aware of this. Do you have any particular early-church writer in mind? I'm curious. Always something new (or in this case, old) to learn....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiclesis The Epiclesis has been an indispensable part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the East, as long as anyone can remember. This is true even in those rites which do not include the words of institution. Most of the rites we have are conciliar or pre-conciliar. The Didache, in the primitive post apostolic period (probably late first century) has a sense of calling upon God to Act without the words of institution, which may be the beginnings of the idea of an epiclesis. In the Scholastic Period there was some fraction between Rome and the East in relation to the absence of the epiclesis in some of the western rites. In the west the greater priority had been given to the institution narrative. I am buried in a few things I have to do at once, so I am not in a space where I can answer the question more fully, however I have been conscious that the East whilst not including the filioque in the creed, do indeed make more of the Holy Spirit as a driving force inn the Eucharist, Let all mortal flesh keep silence, and with fear and trembling stand, ponder nothing earthly minded, for with blessings in his hand, Christ our God to Earth descending, our full homage to demand.
Hmm, the 2019 BCP wording is quite different. Interesting. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the epiclesis in the 2019BCP (Anglican Standard Text liturgy): > So now, O merciful Father, in your great goodness, we ask you to bless and sanctify, with your Word and Holy Spirit, these gifts of bread and wine, that we, receiving them according to your Son our Savior Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.The prayer asks all Persons of the Trinity to act. The other liturgy in the 2019, the Renewed Ancient Text, is similar in this regard: We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and we offer you these gifts. Sanctify them by your Word and Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son Jesus Christ. Sanctify us also...This (and my Roman upbringing) probably explains why I didn't, in my mind, specifically and particularly associate the Holy Spirit with the Eucharist. However, I see the point you're making.
Of course we have no ACNA 2019 book in this realm. I had a partial look at a PDF a while back, and felt it made sense. I would think it would serve well in Anglican circles. I think the point that I am making is that the Eucharist is something that we do, and in it we celebrate what God is doing. Endless tedious arguments about the form of the words and the manner of celebration (ad-populum ad-orientum) and the associated concerns about all manner of necessary non essentials falls a bit flat when we acknowledge that God is moving know in the liturgy. The epiclesis in many mays gives a good focal point to remind us of this great truth,
For the Western tradition, though, the epiclesis has been 'soft' or virtually non-existent for centuries. The strong epiclesis you see in the 2019 BCP and the 1549 BCP is pretty rare compared to the general trend of Roman and Anglican and Lutheran liturgy.
This is patently false. Any anglo-catholic, roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christian who knows anything about their theology could easily challenge you on that "lack of evidence" part. For instance, John 6 is quite clear that we are eating the body of our Lord. So clear that the Jewish audience that was listening left disturbed when after asking for clarification our Lord repeats in even stronger terms that we are to partake of His flesh. And of course, we can just take the Lord's words as they are when in His last night He said: "While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:26-28) These words are quite strong. So, I think saying that those who believe in the physical presence of our Lord in the Eucharist has no physical evidence is wrong Biblically. Now, I know your first inclination is to jump to interpret those passages spiritually or metaphorically. But that doesn't mean the Roman or Catholic who takes the words literally is wrong. It just means your interpretation is different...and quite honestly I would say that the evidence doesn't support your view. Especially in light of the Church Fathers.
What I mean by "the lack of physical evidence" is the simple fact that the host doesn't look or taste like flesh, and the wine doesn't look or taste like blood. The Romans believe in a physical change of the substance, so the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine. I'm saying, there's not a scintilla of physical evidence of such a change. The Spiritual body and blood of Christ are received in the bread and wine, which physically still look and taste like bread and wine for the simple fact that the physical substances of bread and wine remain. As for being "wrong Biblically," what about Paul's description of communion? 1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup... Even Jesus, after passing the Eucharistic cup, said He would not drink again of this blood.... oh, excuse me, "this fruit of the vine" (Matt. 26:29)... until the 2nd Advent. Article 28 says we receive "after an heavenly and spiritual manner... by faith." Do anglo-catholics agree with the 39 Articles, or are they losing the "anglo"? I don't have an Anglican badge, but at least I believe what Article 28 says. Perhaps you have conflated "physical evidence" with "real presence"? Two different things.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 1Corinthians 11:27-32 Jesus did not say, take eat, this is symbolic of my body. xxviii. of the lord’s supper The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. 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. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. I am not calling to to question whether you should have an Anglican Badge, or not, that is really a matter for you and the learned folk who manage this site. I don't have one, and it has nothing to do with Article XXVIII. However, it would be poor form if you tried to force a receptionist understanding as the only way this article can be understood. And just so I am clear, I do not describe myself as an Anglo-Catholic, nor do I find the term overly helpful, unless you are describing the movement that followed in the wake of the Oxford Movement, nearly 2 centuries ago. Interestingly I find Sydney Carter more help than most, where he was discussing music, and the notes of music which are simply physical vibrations beating on the eardrums, and carrying a burden not physical at all, bring joy and sorrow and all sorts of things not physical at all, but only encountered through the physical. It should be noted that the generally accepted Anglican Position is described in the term Real Presence, and it would be decidedly unhelpful for us here on this site to suggest that what we mean by that is actually unreal presence. The reason why many have trouble with the term Transubstantiation, is that it is not real enough. Indeed numbers of RCC Theologians these days are more likely to speak in terms of real presence, simply because the find it a more helpful way to speak of what the orthodox would describe as ineffable.
He also said “I am the door” and yet no one tried to physically enter through him. And yet he is a door, a real door, just not a physical door. Physical is not the only “real”. Christians do act like the atheists sometimes. The doctrine of the physical Eucharist is impossible for a Christian to accept; because it means that you poop out His body in the toilet, because it means that rodents and cockroaches can eat His body, because it trivializes his 1st Century incarnation, and because it gives pretext to set up the host on high, to be worshipped like the Calf. Every single one of these objections is sinful to propose, and yet physical presence proposes all four of them at once. And there’s no need, because none of the Fathers taught physical presence, raised the host for worship, etc. Just see St Augustine.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith................... I could be wrong but when I read that I take it to mean that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. We, who eat it actually do eat of Christ but it is in a spiritual and heavenly manner. He is actually present in the Eucharist in that way. It is real he is there. He is in the sacrament. That is why it is so dangerous to eat it in an unworthy manner.
Metaphorically 'eat' though. Not physically and literally eat. Take Christ into ourselves, into our very being, in a spiritual sense. "Take, Eat, this is the body of Christ" - Absolutely YES! But not champ on Him with our teeth and digest Him in our stomache then defacate what remains of His body, down the toilet. THAT would be to utterly display a total IGNORANCE of what a sacrament actually IS. I really don't think our transubstantiation believing RC bretheren have really thought this 'doctrine' and its logical conclusions properly through. The act of eating is itself part of The Sacrament. It is a metaphor. It is an outward and tangible sign of an inward, invisible, spiritual grace. .
We eat on the body of Christ in our hearts, with faith and thanksgiving. Literally. Why can't people understand that?
The way I view from Article 28 is that Christ is in the Eucharist. He is truly in the bread and wine. We don't know how exactly and we are not arrogant enough to proclaim that we do. He is there in a heavenly and spiritual way. So while we eat the bread and wine after the priest Consecrates it Christ some how in a heavenly and spiritual manner is also really present in the Eucharist.
I guess Eucharistic miracles don't count?... This doesn't really support you. First, you disregarded and didn't attempt to engage the passages I brought up. Second, you cherry picked the verses, leaving out the most important part: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." ( 1 Cor. 11:27) So eating the bread and wine in an unworthy way will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. How can one profane the body and blood of the Lord when it is not the actual body and blood? That can be interpreted quite a few ways. The Anglo-Catholic view is of a corporeal presence of Christ in the eucharist. Now how that is done is a mystery and a consistent Anglo-Catholic would agree with the Orthodox and Lutheran on that. We wouldn't go as far as Rome with Transubstantiation, and we wouldn't say Christ is locally in the eucharist but would agree with St. Thomas Aquinas is saying that the whole Christ is present in the Eucharist but not as if in a place. Quite possible. I took evidence as meaning no support ignoring the "physical" part. Quite wrong. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St Cyril of Jerusalem, and others would very fervently disagree with you on that.
We know for a fact that there wasn't a single Father (among dozens/hundreds?), who recommended lifting up and offering adoration to the Host. That practice literally only emerges in the middle ages after the doctrine of Transubstantiation first entered Christendom. This is how we know that the Fathers' doctrine was different from the transubstantiation, and that not a single father held to the idea of physical presence, in the way that would emerge 800-1000 years later. I could be wrong though, so if you can find even one Father recommending that we offer adoration to the Host in any shape or form (dulia, latria, etc), that would certainly be a counterbalance to what I've said.
So, I would agree that not one Father, as far as I know, recommended lifting the host up and adoring it. But I was answering to the portion about physical presence. The Fathers I quoted disagree. Here are some quotes: St. Ignatius of Antioch "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). St. Justin Martyr "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). St. Irenaeus of Lyon "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). St. Cyril of Jerusalem "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). In all these cases, the Fathers are clear. They don't talk at all about eating with our heart, as you mentioned earlier. They clearly believe that the bread and wine, after the consecration, becomes the body/flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
@Thomist Anglican those quotes seem to match pretty well with my understanding of the Eucharist."The way I view from Article 28 is that Christ is in the Eucharist. He is truly in the bread and wine. We don't know how exactly and we are not arrogant enough to proclaim that we do. He is there in a heavenly and spiritual way. So while we eat the bread and wine after the priest Consecrates it Christ some how in a heavenly and spiritual manner is also really present in the Eucharist."
Thanks for that. But as for the physical presence, if they believed that the elements of the host became the blood & sinews of a physical body, then to not worship it would be blasphemy. If Jesus physically stood in front of you, then to not bow & worship is unacceptable. So the Roman church is consistent on that view. Yet not one father advocated that we bow and worship. Which inescapably points us to the conclusion that the presence they believed was not one of blood & sinews of a physical body. The syllogism is ironclad, unless I'm missing a contradiction somewhere. These are great quotes, and if you parse them closely, all they advocate is real presence, without explaining the mode or the manner. At other times, when being a little more precise about the mode and manner of the presence, they say things like, St. Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms: "He showed us in a Sacrament bread and wine, after the order of Melchisedech, to be the likeness of the body and blood of Christ." Theodoret, Dialogue: "The mystical tokens or sacraments after the Consecration, depart not from their own nature: for they remain still in their former substance, and form, and figure" St. Cyprian, On the Unction: "Our Lord at the Table, where he received his last Supper with his Disciples, with his own hands did not verily give his own very body and very blood, but bread and wine; but upon the Cross he gave his own body, to be wounded by the hands of the soldiers." Gelasius, Against Eutyches: "There is no lessening of the substance of bread, or the nature of wine. And indeed the image or representation, and likeness of the body and blood of Christ is published in the ministration of the mysteries." But as for usages like "flesh", that's completely orthodox and in every detail found in our doctrine. We too speak of the flesh, and our liturgy has very strong language about partaking the holy Body and the sacred Blood. The Prayer of Humble Access: "We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen." We even have the language in the liturgy, where the recipient receives the Sacrament, and hears: "take, eat, this is my Body, which is given ..." So none of the quotes you had listed there are incompatible with the doctrine of Spiritual Real Presence. John Jewel explains why language sometimes says "X", but actually means "X via Y". For example we say, "with this ring I thee wed", but the ring itself is not the marital bond. If we break the ring, we don't break the unbreakable bond of matrimony. The ring stands in for the marital bond. And the physical Host stands in for the Sacred Body and Blood, which is spiritually present in the Host. The dirty fleshy hands of the priest cannot hold the sacred and perfect Body; they hold the fungible and imperfect Host. But through it, we are conveyed the sacred and perfect Body.
I never said it shouldn't be, just that I haven't read anywhere in the Early Church Fathers of them recommending adoring it. If they did or did not I don't know. They are though. There is nowhere in the Church Fathers where they talk about some sort of "spiritual" body and blood. What does that even mean? Can you give me an example of a spiritual body? spiritual blood? Body and blood seem to be material things. But you're advocating for an immaterial thing. It doesn't seem to make any sense and really seems like a contradiction. I think the Anglo-Catholic understanding, much like the Orthodox and Lutheran, makes much more sense and agrees with the plain reading of the Scripture and the Church Fathers without having to add extra meanings that aren't plainly spoken of.