Spiritual Real Presence

Right, and it also refers to the fact that Jesus Christ is our ONLY and REAL and SUFFICIENT mediator and advocate, promising to be with us in intimate communion merely by prayer in His Name. See St. Chrysostom's prayer, which contains that phrase from Matthew 18. It comes in Morning and Evening Prayer where there is no Eucharist.

 

I love that prayer, H. Barton. There's your real presence!

Cranmer actually went centuries back and took it from the ancient Byzantine liturgy:

"Lord, You have given us grace to offer these common prayers with one heart. You have promised to grant the requests of two or three gathered in Your name. Fulfill now the petitions of Your servants for our benefit, giving us the knowledge of Your truth in this world, and granting us eternal life in the world to come."

That's from the Orthodox church in America; the prayer actually comes very early in their Eucharist. Interesting that the Orthies love to mock Protestants, and yet here we are reverently using prayers which they claim exclusively for their own.

 

Actually I wasn't referring to eucharist, but rather responding to ABC's quote that Jesus's person in heaven and cant / wont come down until resurrection...

 

Sorry Scottish Knight but I can say it because it is what I really think and we are allowed to express our thoughts in a mature way are we not since it is a discussion forum. Whether you agree with me or not is another question and a question that is equally up for debate. But to tell me I can't say that, what I clearly have said that and for me that is how I personally think about it. It does not worry me like it worries some so I can easily view that it is no more right for Roman Catholics as it is for us because as I say I don't hold strong views on it - regardless of what may be 'taught' So for me, I am happy that Rome teaches Roman Catholics abut Real Presence in their worship only and the rest of us are invalid because in their 'eyes' we do not have real presence and I am happy that we are equally as right because for some anglicans real presence is there whilst for others its not. We are in essence both right and neither are at all wrong. I am not keen that Rome teaches Roman Catholics everyone else is invalid because there isn't Real Presence. That is not right for me because I think that there are many rooms in Our Father's House and for Rome to call the shots like that and say everyone else is invalid is where I have my issue but for them to state Real Presence and for who ever to state Not Real Presence I am fine with that aspect because for me personally I truelly do not think about it when I am in Church, whichever Church and only conform to rules of other churches because I don't want to be misunderstood. But left to my individual choice I would receive anywhere because I do not worry about Real Presence because God is there anyway so Jesus is there anyway and the Holy Spirit. To ask for further proof of Real Presence when God is there anyhow seems barbaric and very odd per se to me... No offence and peace xxx But people like to worry about stuff they be better leaving alone because there isn't a scientific answer not that life is all about scientific answers. But this question seems to upset people more than it should

 

Not a little bit, I'm afraid.

The first bit has little bearing on the argument, because Paul speaks from the perspective of being in the world where we're distracted and weighed down with sin, I hardly wish to suggest that as we receive Christ bodily we somehow reach the fullness of salvation enjoyed by the Saints, and I would point out that the bodily presence of Christ with the 12 disciples didn't exactly make them perfect either.

Again, I wonder if you're still assuming too much of an overlap between the 'pre' and 'post' resurrection body, particularly when you appreciate that the Son's humanity has to be taken up, to interrelate somehow into the Godhead, which is of course an inifinite, incoporeal reality. The idea that His body is just floating around somewhere in space, in a place, is obviously absurd. And it must be remembered of course that Christ's humanity has no intrinsic value apart from the fact it was Christ's, and through it he revealed the nature of the invisible God. The body of Christ is symbolic, but unusally so in that it is a symbol that presents us directly with what it symbolises rather than acts as intermediary, as most symbols do. This is because of course God cannot be positively expressed humanly without recourse to symbols. The Body was and is the reality of God even as it isn't. These non-mediating symbol is what we receive at the Eucharist.

Since we are already delving into territory that risks us going mad trying to pry into the secrets of God, I do wonder about your assertions that the body cannot do the logically impossible, but that's a question of theological method- is God subject to such axioms out of some habit of his nature? But I fear this may be a bit of a dead end debate.

Whilst on the question of speculating on the unwritten, I'd be interested to know where you find support for this idea that the divinity (uncreated reality) and the soul (a created reality) are present apart from the body (which in biblical thought is inseperable from the soul- human's are a single integrated synthesis- there is no 'ghost in the machine' as it were).

 

Hi Rhiannon, sorry if I came across like I was telling you what to believe (although at the end of your post you told me what I should not be worrying about , I was just discussing things you raised in your post. I think it's important for some because it strikes at the heart of worship to God, what He is, where He is etc. This is why it's a concern for us. Could we worship anything we think is Christ regardless whether it is or not? There is sometimes this idea that we should let all denominations believe their own teachings and concentrate just on our own denominations - live and let live attitude. I don't think this is right because for one we are all christians of one body - if we see a christian church teaching a false belief that is clearly contrary to God's Word then I think we do need to say in love this isn't right - for the good of the whole church. True, it's not scientific but I think we can look to scripture and see what God wants us to do. Anyway just some of my thoughts

 

we can look at scripture for guidence on what we are to do rather than what we are to do.... especially if its the new testament.

Fair point that I had just told you to think though I do believe that whilst it is a genuine debateable topic 'we' can look too much into this area rather than let our Bishops and Priests guide us. After all if one is truelly Catholic then there is no doubt that there is real presence.They don't need to discuss if Real Presence is there or not because they all believe (taught) real presence is there and it is black and white as that for them.
What does God want us to do as regards to Real Prensence by reading and studying the Scripture? For me, I think He just wants us to parttake and worship Him without endless unaswerable questions. Jesus' faith is simple its been said on here. He simply believed in God. Cannot our faith be as simple? Mine is in that I don't dabble in all this philosphy and theology stuff and just concentrate on God. But some people like to make their faith more complicated then wonder why it dries up? Certainly at The Service this morning I wasn't thinking about Real Presence or not. I just steadily work my way through the service enjoying the feeling of it etc and just being with God and feeling His Presence. What do we get by trying to work out Real Presence or not? If you don't know the answer whether there is Real Presence or not depending on the meaning of Real Presence then I would be more concerned as a Christian what stage we are at with faith. Is is about faith or is it about rubics of theology. For me its about faith thats what important. So I am free from the issue of Real Presence and can simply join in with ease....

 

Yeah, that's where I'm at

 

But then Rhiannon, I wonder, what happens if you happen to go to a Benediction service? There are the worshippers censing, singing hymns and praying intently with the object of focus being the blessed sacrament, the bread.

Those there would say God was present in a very specific, localised and indeed powerful way- would you just go along with this?

I would also say in my case, Theology did not 'dry up' my faith, but actually gave me the means by which to have faith. I always think of Augustine in Book 3 of his Confessions on the Scriptures 'And behold, I perceive something not comprehended by the proud, not disclosed to children, but lowly as you approach, sublime as you advance, and veiled in mysteries...' and think it might just as well be applied to the whole faith- It is at heart a simple message, but it can withstand even the most penetrating intellectual scrutiny, and to keep (honestly) challenging it is to open up opportunities, not to weaken faith, but to deepen it. Personally, the very intellectual satisfaction it gives is the primary reason that I persist with it, I would say.

 

Even so many would think differently! As far as I remember even Newman gagged at the practice of Benediction , claiming that God couldn't be carried about! This even when he apostatised.

 

These are two of the most convincing arguments for the the spiritual real presence that I've ever read and, I confess, I don't have a retort for them. If this is what is meant by the 28th article, then I can't really object to it.

http://www.glenwoodhills.org/article.asp?ID=510

 

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/dav...ritual-presence-of-christ-in-the-lords-supper

 

Interesting articles. But I thought that the argument in the last paragraph summarizing the second article from hornes.org was rather weak. He stated that Jesus Christ's present location is in heaven and therefore He cannot be anywhere else. How does any mere mortal know what God the Son can do? In my humble opinion the writer was making Him too small and trying to put Him into a box. Just because you and I can only be one place at a time, does not mean than God the Son can only be one place at a time.

 

Every Mass I attend we say the Nicene Creed wherein it is written,'and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.'!
BCP.
Have we been lying since 325 AD.?
What is the purpose of affirming our beliefs in this way if we don't believe what we say? Why do we call ourselves Anglican or Catholic if we don't believe what the Church tells us. Christ can do anything he wants, I believe that He is present in the Sacrament because He tells us " This is My Body,". I can't prove it, I don't doubt it, because He tells me so. Can you prove otherwise, or is it you don't believe in the Creed?

 

Kammi, I agree. The second article had me right up to the end. Like HC points out, if I stand with the Nicene Creed, then I must agree that Christ is now and will remain forever

 

in heaven until he returns to judge the quick and the dead. At the same time Christ's own promise compells me to believe that he is with us always until the end of this ppresent age. There is the rub. As pointed out by the second article, I was told that what the pneumaticists believed was that Christ's spirit, divorced from his body and blood, was all that was present in the sacrament, and that only in the heart of the believer. That has never been convincing to me (and still isn't). If, however, the spiritual nature of tje argument refers to the manner rather than the object (or subject...I haven't had coffee yet so I cant remember which is which) then I may be able to swallow it.

 

perhaps this is a crude analogy to what I see happening in the eucharist. At work from time to time, I am called to a meeting where some of the participants attend remotely via a computer. we have them visually on the monitor and we can talk and interact with as with anyone else in attendance. Although they are physically somewhere on the opposite part of the globe, by means of the monitor, they are made personally present with my office and simultaneously present with every other office in attendance no matter how many or how farflung. And whats more, we are made personally present with those remote attendees. The monitors are more than mere pictures, they are portals--wi dows--

 

by which we can transcend the limitations of geography and physicality and can communicate personally with people no matter their physical location. Neither party has to physically go anywhere and yet we can all be personally together. In the same way, in the eucharist, the holyspirit uses the elemwnts the way the monitor is used in our neeting, to give us an interactive picture of chris and makes him personally, bur not locally, present. just as the monitor remains nothing more than a monitor, the elements remain bread and wine. however, just as the monitor gives us an interctive picture of the remote attendee, the elements give us an interactive picture of christ. just as my eyes receive the image of the remote attendee through the monitor, my mouth receives christ through the elements. all of this is personal rhough not physical. Does this make sense? perhaps im speculating too much on this.

 

again, apologies for all the typos.