Receptionism

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Cavital, Mar 21, 2021.

  1. Cavital

    Cavital New Member

    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopal Church
    Hey all! I have a question on receptionism and your thoughts on this as it pertains to the theology of Anglican Christendom. Does the idea of receptionism break with the theology and policy of the Anglican Communion or those churches in the Continuing movement? Is based in sound theology? I myself am not to sure, but here is an article on the matter. Again, just here to figure stuff and hear your thoughts.

    http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-is-receptionism.html
     
  2. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Our articles leave a bit of wiggle room on how to define what takes place during the Eucharist. I wish it was more precise. I lean towards a more Lutheran understading
     
  3. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I think the articles leave more than enough room for a receptionist to see their position in some way supported by the articles, however this is not a position that is required by the articles. The general position of the articles is generally understood to be what we might define a real presence. One of the problems I have with that is that many seem to make that less real and less present that the articles suggest, none the less I think that we should affirm real presence.

    1549
    WE do not presume to come to this thy table (o mercifull lord) trusting in our owne righteousnes, but in thy manifold and great mercies: we be not woorthie so much as to gather up the cromes under thy table: but thou art the same lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercie: Graunt us therefore (gracious lorde) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christ, and to drynke his bloud in these holy Misteries, that we may continuallye dwell in hym, and he in us, that our synfull bodyes may bee made cleane by his body, and our soules washed through hys most precious bloud. Amen.

    1661/2
    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.

    APBA

    We do not presume to come to your table, merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table. But you are the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy. Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

    Common Worship
    We do not presume to come to this your table, merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table. But you are the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of your 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.

    BCP 2019

    We do not presume to come to this your table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your abundant and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table; but you are the same Lord whose character is always to have mercy. Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of your 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 have clung to the Prayer of Humble Access, though I have heard several arguments against it's continued use, it remains part of what has held us together, and I think we should not give up on it. I think that we as Anglicans are called to have a Eucharistic Theology that enables us to pray this with integrity. I am not sure about the Australian omission, but even still the main body of the prayer is in tact.
     
  4. Cavital

    Cavital New Member

    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopal Church
    I made a mistake please ignore this message
     
  5. Cavital

    Cavital New Member

    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopal Church
    Does the Anglican church in Australia or the Continuing Anglican movement have less wiggle room than say the Episcopal Church USA?
     
  6. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Anglican Church of Australia by its constitution is limited.

    This Church, being derived from the Church of England, retains and approves the doctrine and principles of the Church of England embodied in the Book of Common Prayer together with the Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and in the Articles of Religion sometimes called the Thirty-nine Articles but has plenary authority at its own discretion to make statements as to the faith ritual ceremonial or discipline of this Church and to order its forms of worship and rules of discipline and to alter or revise such statements, forms and rules, provided that all such statements, forms, rules or alteration or revision thereof are consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained herein and are made as prescribed by this Constitution. Provided, and it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard.
    Constitution at 4 - Ruling Principles.

    I think that Anglican elasticity - wiggle room - would be common to all the jurisdictions to which you refer, though perhaps at times TEC seems more to be break dancing rather wriggling. !?
     
  7. Cavital

    Cavital New Member

    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopal Church
    If I may ask, in your opinion at least. Do you think the Thirty-Nine Articles are outdated for modern usage? At least to me some of them seem more reactionary towards Catholicism and more Protestant rather than our modern day "Third Way" or "Via Media" if you prefer.
     
  8. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I do not think that the Thirty Nine Articles are outdated for modern usage. They are a foundation document of the Elizabethan Settlement, that provided the Church with the means to remain true to it's Catholic Heritage whilst embracing the space for many who had a mind for reformation. The language of the 39 is a product of it's time, and the Bishop of Rome is not spoken well of, however one might note in the time he did not speak well of the English Monarchs either. The 39 are not in the fullest sense a confessional churches statement of faith, but rather provide the foundations for building that faith. I don't have a Anglican Badge here because I am honest enough to know I am not about to subscribe to them, however in discussions here I have long held them out as providing much guidance for us. I have long thought that Article 1 is profound, deep, and a great theological statement.

    I commend them to Anglicans, that they might reflect upon them and think about what they mean, allowing for the context. They are easily quipped away by those who don't like this or that, however this runs the real risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
     
    Thomas Didymus and Tiffy like this.
  9. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    It is difficult to make any broad pronouncements about the Continuing churches. That is why there are so many separate bodies. Thus, on the spectrum of Continuing churches, you will find some where transubstantiation is popular, the Affirmation of St. Louis has replaced the Articles of Religion, and the only other acceptable view for the clergy is the Lutheran view. At the other end of the spectrum you will find churches where the Articles are viewed as a confession of faith and Holy Communion might not be a weekly service; in this small segment receptionism is virtually the only acceptable view. Then there are churches which do in fact have a breadth of permitted public teaching. Of course, the view of the eucharist is primarily a clergy problem; no one is going to turn away a layman because they are a memorialist unless they try to hijack the Sunday school (assuming their is one) and turn the church into their own little fiefdom where their view is the only acceptable one. However, there is the canonical exam (this can be written, an oral board, or both) to weed out those candidates for ordination who might hold unusual or unacceptable positions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2021
    Thomas Didymus and Botolph like this.
  10. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Generally, receptionism can be seen as a weaker theology of the Eucharist arising in the late 19th century, when Methodist/Baptist evangelicals began to enter Anglicanism. In the late 19th century there was a crisis of catechesis in the seminaries, sunday schools, confirmation classes, and so a lot of the historic faith wasn't everywhere uniformly asserted. That being said, receptionism is still within the bounds of orthodoxy, because it affirms a real partaking of the Body and Blood, although it isn't as strong as the historical position of spiritual real presence.

    Baptismal Regeneration is another similar case, where in the latter 19th century it suddenly became a huge point of contention, with otherwise orthodox theologians stubbornly rejecting it in all their books and articles, even though baptismal regeneration was held to for centuries, and directly found in the Prayerbook, the Articles, and the 16th century catechisms.

    Receptionism is the same thing, a weak theology of the Eucharist pushed by the same evangelical theologians who rejected baptismal regeneration, and downplayed Confirmation, holy orders, the Athanasian creed, and many other aspects of the historic faith.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2021
  11. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Religion:
    ACNA
    What is the difference between receptionism and Spiritual Real Presence?
     
  12. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Receptionism argues that just during the instant of receiving the Host, at that moment the person in some way receives the spiritual Body. But this reception is in no way connected to the Host, other than that they happen at the same time. The Host is locally present in a certain place, it is given by the priest, consumed by the communicant, but none of that has anything to do with where the spiritual Body is. The two just have nothing to do with one another, really.

    That is different from spiritual real presence which simply says that the spiritual Body is present with the physical Host. Wherever the one is, there is the other; it is taken, given, etc. That’s as objectively present as you can get, without all the problems of Physical presence and all that that brought into the church.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  13. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I feel I must disagree with your characterization of the differences as a 'strong' or a 'weak' Eucharistic theology. The words being employed, 'strong' and 'weak,' are conclusory; they imply that receptionism is necessarily less consistent with Scripture and early church beliefs. This conclusion is not shared by all but is an opinion shared by some.

    Augustine's writings support receptionism. I copied the following quotes from Jewel's Treatise:
    "Whoso disagreeth from Christ, neither eateth His Bread nor drinketh
    His Blood: although he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing without difference, to the judgment of his presumption."
    (Augustine appears to be taking into account 1 Cor. 11:27, regarding unworthy partaking, in the last clause of this statement.)

    Jerome said, "They that rise not up by faith, receive not the cup of Christ."

    Hilary wrote, "The Bread that came down from Heaven is not received,
    but of him that hath our Lord, and is the member of Christ."

    These early fathers' understanding of Eucharistic theology seems to have been that a faithless partaker received only ordinary bread and wine, not the Body and Blood of our Lord. Isn't that 'receptionism' in a nutshell?
     
  14. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Not at all, since that's a feature common to all schools of spiritual presence. Both receptionism and spiritual real presence are equally advantageous here, over against the 'physical' presence advanced by the Roman church. Separating the Body from the elements of the Host does a lot to address all these issues. If the Body and the elements are not the same thing, then God can simply withhold himself. He is not trapped in the fingers of the human being (etc).
     
  15. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Ach! I guess I had the wrong idea.

    Okay, then, let me back up and readjust my understanding. The difference pertains, instead, to whether the elements become the Body and Blood only at the time they are received by the communicant (receptionism) or whether they become the Body and Blood immediately at consecration?

    If that's all it is, then that difference plus $2 will get us a cup of coffee! :laugh: As far as the end result, anyway. It starts to look more like an issue of whether there is some actual power inherent in the words of consecration. :hmm:
     
  16. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The elements don't ever become the Body, because they are physical, while the body is spiritual. That's the whole advantage of the non-physical school of thought with regards to the Eucharist. Just like the wedding ring isn't the actual unbreakable bond of marriage, but "with this ring I thee wed" creates a bond of marriage that even God can't break (so to speak). So with the Eucharist, "Take this, and eat, this is my Body" feeds us with the Body and Blood without physical host becoming them and creating a mass of issues for the faithful.

    So if the host and the Body are always separate, back to the question of receptionism, there the priest consecrates the Host, but it doesn't appear. It actually never appears until the last possible second. He can handle the Host, consecrate it, deliver it, the communicant can take it, there is still no actual Body. He receives the spiritual Body, it finally appears, only at the last moment of actual reception (and no one knows when that is).

    With spiritual real presence, the sacred Body is just always there. It is always present with the host, after the consecration. They are there as two parallel realities, perfectly in sync. When the priest lifts the host, he lives the spiritual body, and when the communicant receives, in consuming the host, he consumes the Body as well (with the mouth of faith).

    As to your quotes from the Fathers, they are one of the ways to disprove 'physical presence' found in the Roman school. With us, it is possible for God to withhold himself from a communicant, whereas if the 'physical presence' were true, then he'd be trapped when handled by humans (silly).
     
    Invictus and Rexlion like this.
  17. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Religion:
    ACNA
    The spiritual presence sounds like this quote from an old Pope. It also sounds very Lutheran in a way.The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and likeness of the body and blood of Christ is set out in the celebration of the mysteries… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature, so they show that the principal mystery itself, the efficacy and virtue of which they truly make present (repraesentant) to us, consists in this, that the two natures remain each in its own proper being so that there is one Christ because He is whole and real (Pope Gelasius, On the Two Natures in Christ. Taken from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longman’s, Green, 1909), Volume I, p. 102).
     
    Thomas Didymus, Stalwart and Rexlion like this.
  18. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I see. :thumbsup: And when I compare the Eucharistic prayers of Anglicans and Romans, the difference stands out starkly in a way I hadn't previously noticed.

    (Anglican 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."

    (current Roman liturgy) "Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray,
    by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall,
    so that they may become for us the Body and ✠ Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

    I think I've heard the Roman liturgy so many more times in my lifetime than the Anglican one, I still have that "become... the Body and Blood" phrase rolling around in my subconscious, discoloring my new reality. It's like having ingested lead paint when young, and having to slowly get rid of the lead for years afterward.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  19. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Might be helpful if you properly identified the liturgies you refer to.

    I think BCP 2019 - rite 1 and ???Novus Ordo???

    In reality I don't think that the quoted text in either case should cause any Anglican too much grief, given that we should all be able to pray:

    1661/2
    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.

    as I mentioned earlier, or a

    1549 rewrite
    We do not presume to come to your table, merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in you manifold and great mercies: we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under you table: but you are the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lorde, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood in these holy mysteries, that we may continually dwell in him, and he in us, that our sinful bodies may bee made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood. Amen.
     
  20. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Botoph, I quoted the Anglican Standard Text from the 2019 BCP, and the RC liturgy's Eucharistic prayer II (the latter is the updated version of the one I grew up hearing regularly until my late 20s; the older versions I constantly heard were prayers I and II viewable on this page if you scroll down almost halfway: http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/holymass.htm ).
     
    Thomas Didymus likes this.