eucharist

The Body of Christ is locally "in" heaven (see Black Rubric), that is the only place it "is". By the power of the Holy Spirit, worthy recipients are able, through faith, to receive Christ.

 

That's a very simplistic reading of my theology and that of the Articles. I would suggest reading through the liturgy of Holy Communion and the accompanying Homily.

The body of Christ does objectively exist, at the right hand of the Father, the minister doesn't go about giving it to people. He administers the sacrament, which is a visible sign.

 

The gospels recount the creation of the Eucharist as follows : " And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

As an Anglican, I firmly hold that scripture us our highest authority. The canons of interpretation make it clear from the text that, when Jesus said "this is my body....my blood", he was talking about the elements. He wasn't speaking symbolically or nor was he talking about some presence in the heart of the believer who happens to be eating the bread and wine. That may be the cranmerian view but it is not the biblical view nor the catholic view imho.

 

I have read the liturgy and the Homilies. Thank you for the suggestion but I had already read it all in seminary. I agree what is said therein. Would you be able to point me to where in the articles or the homilies your "virtual" doctrine is taught?

Yes my view is "simplistic" as in, I read the Articles plainly and simply for what they really say. The Body is taken and given. It is transferred. It exists in our real world, outside of the communicant, in the heavenly and spiritual manner.

 

The words of "taken" and "given" had been penned by cranmer so whoever is being quoted here, it isn't cranmerian. I don't know where this doctrine of quasi-real "sort of but not really" "objectively only in heaven" Zwinglianism is taught.

 

I'll defer to your seminary education Spherelink. As for me I only know what I've learned in reading Cranmer's works. For example, in Book III of The Works of Thomas Cranmer, "Of the Presence of Christ", Cranmer writes: And St Augustine saith not as you do, that Christ's words be "figurative to the unfaithful;" for they be figurative rather to the faithful than to the unfaithful. For the unfaithful take them for no figure or mystery at all, but rather carnally, as the Capernaites did. And there is indeed no mystery nor figure in eating with the mouth (as you say Christ's flesh is eaten), but in eating with the soul and spirit is the figure and mystery. For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faithful and unfaithful, to the carnal and spiritual, and both understand in like what is eating and drinking with the mouth. And therefore in no place do the doctors declare, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ's body with our mouths, or that there is any truth in that mystery; but they say clean contrary, that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouths. And if in any place any old author write, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ with August, de our mouths, shew the place if you will have any credit. St Augustine specially (whom ni. serm. ."a you do here allege for your purpose) saith directly against you: Nolite parare faucet 25. ted cor, "Prepare not your mouth or jaws, but your heart." And in another place ho saith, Quid paras ventrcm et dentem? Crede et manducasti: "Why dost thou prepare thy belly and teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten."

It may be that this was just a developmental phase in Cranmer's theology, after all, he also wrote the bishop's book. Or maybe I just misunderstood what Cranmer meant. Nevertheless, the quote above is what I based my statement on.

Regardless, other than Hackney Hub I've never met an Anglican who espoused this idea.

 

Yes, the body of Christ is "taken" and "given" in a "heavenly and spiritual" manner, i.e. not a carnal manner. This happens by the power of the Holy Spirit, who lifts our hearts to heaven and the means by which we eat Christ is faith, as the Article says.

 

Hadn't I been espousing the same idea? We are on the same page. Christ's body is truly present in the Eucharist in a heavenly and spiritual manner. Both present and in vain to be sought by our teeth as Augustine teaches. Taken and given, but ever out of reach of unbelievers. Really and fully present there and perceived by the eyes of faith.

 

Every priest I know is somewhere between the Lutheran and Catholic positions.

I believe that Christ is omnipresent, and simultaneously capable of localized presence. He is at the right hand of the Father, but that refers to his place of prominence - not to a physical location. Why? Because the Father's right hand is greater than the universe itself. It isn't a physical place, per se.

When Jesus says "this is my Body," it is. There are no word games being played.

 

I know that this has nothing to do with the theology of the Eucharist at hand, but I did hear one person mention to check the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Book of Common Prayer, so I checked both the Canadian (1962) and the American (1928) versions to compare.

The Canadian version begins with an Introit. The American version does not indicate usage of an Introit.

The Canadian Offertory Sentences have much more to do with the sacrifice of thanksgiving (eucharistia). The American Offertories are more inspirational verses of Scripture.

The Canadian Intercessions of the Priest specifically delineate to pray for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and the local Bishop. The American Intercessions only mention of Bishops and other Ministers. The Canadian one also has in its prayer for the departed, to 'rejoice in their fellowship'. The American on does not.

The Canadian Confession has softened the penitential tone of the prayer. The American one keeps its more Reformed harshness.

The Canadian Sursum Corda begins with "The Lord be with you / And with thy spirit." The American one does not.

The Canadian Prefaces are expanded. Its Sanctus also includes "Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest." The American Sanctus does not contain the Benedictus.

The Canadian and American Prayer of Consecration are different. The Canadian one is less penitential and more catholicised, that the Eucharist is a 'memorial' (Canadian) and not a 'memory' (American).

The Canadian version contains the Agnus Dei (O Lamb of God that takest away the sin of the world, have mercy upon us...). The American one doesn't.

The Canadian post-Communion prayer of the priest contains "And here we offer unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee."

~*~*~*~

Obviously as one can see, the Canadian revision reflects a more Catholicised understanding of the Eucharist as something much much deeper than a symbol, in which resides the True and Real Presence of Christ in His Body and Blood. So even in a sort of 'broad churchmanship' circumstance, the Communion prayers do generally reflect the attitudes and theology of the ones that pray them. I am not sure what is contained in the American BCP 1979, or the Canadian BAS 1985, but I would assume that it would also be more broad-church.

 

The 1979 BCP sounds like what you said about the Canadian BCP, I think that is why many don't like the 1979 because it is more as you described the Canadian BCP

 

Actually the 1962 BCP is very traditional. The Canadian 1962 = the American 1928.

It's rather that the Canadian BAS 1985 = American BCP 1979. A lot of the Collects and Eucharistic prayers are borrowed from the USA into the BAS.

It's the BAS (Book of Alternative Services) of the contemporary language that can be problematic. It is utilised today, and people claim that this book waters down doctrine in simplified English, etc.

 

Here's a useful analogy: "when placed in a fire iron glows because iron and heat are both present."

 

While I'm no expert on bibilecal languages, but perhaps we should consider the word "is". The original greek which the Apostles used to write the gospels has several words which we translate into "is". Matt. 26:26 uses the greek word is esti which is the third person singular present indicative of eimi which means "to be, to exist, to happen, to be present". From what I am told, this means that the meaning conveyed in "This is my body" is that He is literally, physically present. Any thoughts?

 

This is, of course, a complicated and sometimes emotional subject. In good CofE style, the BCP can be read either way, but the Prayer of Humble Access does state, "so to eat the flesh of.......Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood", and when I received the sacrament yesterday I was told it was His body/blood. But the words "in remembrance" are also used. Some Anglicans I know regard the eucharist as symbolic. Other believe in transubstantiation, others (like me) in consubstantiation.

John Young's book on Christianity (approved by a RC priest) tries to explain transubstantiation: "Those who take this view do not deny that the communicants eat actual bread and drink real wine. They employ......Aristotle's distinction between 'substance' and 'accident'".

Discussing the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation with a RC priest I used the phrase, "theological semantics".

 

I agree with the views you have stated in your several posts.

 

Speaking of "remebrance" I happened across this statement concerning whether the eucharist is a sacrifice or merely a memorial ona site called "Scripture Catholic":

Any thoughts on this?