Spiritual Real Presence

Hopefully, all sledge hammers are off limits.

Anna

 

As I said before, I would take Scripture over the 39 Articles. Holy Scripture is very clear about the Body and Blood of Christ being "true food" and "true drink." We cannot ignore John Chapter 6.

John 6:
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Remember, being raised to eternal life and Christ abiding in us and us in Him is connected to consuming His Body and Blood.

When the Jews asked how Jesus could give us His flesh to eat, it would have been the perfect time for Jesus to say this is symbolic or this is only a Spiritual eating. That wasn't the case.

John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Instead---Jesus said His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink.

John 6:
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

This was a hard saying for many disciples, who turned back and no longer followed Jesus.

John 6:
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

How does one eat the true Flesh of Christ and drink His true Blood, if not through the Holy Eucharist?

Peace,
Anna

 

While it is food for another thread, It should be pointed out that the 39 Articles ,{at least according to J Kidd, and W.Palmer } should be read through the Prism of the Seven Councils.

 

Very interesting point, Highchurchman. I'll check into J Kidd and W. Paimer. I appreciate the reference.
Peace,
Anna

 

Hi Anna, we briefly crossed paths on CAF.

Regarding the 39 Articles, you might like this quote from John Bramhall (1594-1663) one of the Caroline Divines. Bramhall stressed the continuity of the English Church, before, during and after the reformation. He defended the CofE from accusations by both Puritans and Roman Catholics. He said that:

The Church of England before the Reformation and the Church of England after the Reformation are as much the same church, as a garden, before it is weeded and after it is weeded, is the same garden.

As to the 39 Articles, he wrote:

We do not suffer any man to reject the Thirty-Nine Articles of the CofE at his pleasure; yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and of His Apostles; but in a mean, as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity. Neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.

You may find the Caroline Divines interesting, particularly with reference to Anglican doctrine and the real presence. There is some good info on many of the Divines here:

http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/

 

Symphorian,

First, welcome to the Anglican Forums!

Our paths did cross on a few threads on CAF, but your avatar is different there. Sean posts over there too. It seems like more Anglicans are joining CAF lately---which is a good thing. I've been on threads where everyone disagreed with me. It's good to have some backup once in awhile, especially in clarifying misconceptions about Anglicanism.

I checked out the link you posted. I hadn't visited that site before. I read THE INSTITUTION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/Eucharist.html. Very interesting description of the Eucharist, which leans toward both spiritual and physical/material elements of the Real Presence.

Hope you'll weigh in on other threads, here, as well.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

I have found this to be an excellent discussion.

 

Very interesting discussion. I really must go back and read all of the posts again.

Thank you.

...Scottish Monk

 

I am no theologian. However, regarding the presence, I accept and believe what I say each Sunday when I say the Prayer of Humble Access.

We do not presume to come to this your table, 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, who always delights in showing 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 is us. Amen.​

...Scottish Monk

 

I realize that things are getting a bit heated on this thread, but I would just like to clarify my own comments in case they did cause offense to anyone. My argument has basically run as follows:

P1) The whole Person of Jesus Christ--His full divinity and His full humanity--are truly present in the Eucharist.

P2) If the whole Person of Jesus Christ is not fully present in both natures, then He is not present at all.

P3) [From P1 & P2] It follows that any denial of the bodily presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is a denial of the "spiritual" presence of Christ in the Sacrament (since one cannot be present apart from the other).

C) It follows [from P1-P3] therefore that the teaching of "spiritual real presence" effectively denies the indivisible and inseparable union of the two natures in Christ, as well as the presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

As I wrote in another thread, I believe that love yields all, and faith yields nothing. If those who hold to a "spiritual real presence" are offended by my position on the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, I want them to know that it was not my intention to offend them. But, having said that, I also do not believe that "being offended" is somehow inherently evil. I am often "offended" at being called a filthy, rotten, poor, miserable (...and so on and so on...) sinner. Yet, not only is this true, but it is a truth necessary for my salvation (if I am not a sinner, then Christ has not died for me). Likewise, the doctrine of the true, bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament is a teaching that may cause offense to those who deny it. But I believe that it is true and necessary for salvation.

Here I must clarify that I do not think that anyone here who holds to a "spiritual real presence" is not a true, redeemed saint in Christ Jesus. A theologian named Franz Pieper once coined the term "felicitous inconsistency" to refer to those who profess a particular teaching in theory but deny it in practice. Synergists, for example, who hold in theory to the doctrine of human free will and cooperation with the grace of God, in practice deny it. When synergists pray to God for the salvation of lost souls, they do not pray "O Lord, please cooperate with so and so!" Instead, the "synergist" prays: "O Lord, save so and so in spite of their willful unbelief! Give them a new heart to love you!" There is an old saying that if any theological doctrine cannot be prayed before God, then it is not Christian theology. I believe that those who deny the bodily presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist do so because of philosophical reasons and in theory hold to it, but in practice they do not treat the Person of Christ as somehow present in one of His natures. When they speak of and pray to Christ, they speak of Him and pray to Him in the fullness of His humanity and divinity, i.e., in the fullness of His Person. And it is this Person of Christ that they have received, whether they hold to this intellectually or not. Hence they are "felicitously inconsistent" in their teaching. May God be praised for it!

I will also bow out of this thread (unless I am specifically asked something). If I have offended anyone, as a matter of love and charity, I sincerely ask for forgiveness. But I do not, as a matter of faith and conscience, apologize for my argument, which I believe to be the teaching of Christ and Scripture.

Yours in Christ,
Jerome

 

Jerome...

Thank you for phrasing your position in succinct terms. Very easy to follow. By using the terms divinity (for spiritual) and humanity (for physical), you present a very strong position of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Thank you for making the post.

...Scottish Monk

 

I bowed out of this one earlier because I could only see it going south at a great rate of knots.
I think when language like 'you are not a real Anglican if you don't believe x or y' is going to cause tension with those who don't believe x or y and consider themselves real Anglican. I think we can do without this is this great forum.

blessings, Gordon

 

The Lord is present in the Sacrament of the Lord's supper. and that is really all we need to know. any attempt to try and define it leads into the trap of speculative metaphysics. if an Anglican teaches Transubstantiation then that Anglican has crossed the line and their theology cannot be called 'Anglican'. it's disrespectful both to Anglican theology to claim that it's an acceptable doctrine and it's disrespectful to Rome who does not believe Anglican Clerics have the Authority to effect a change in the Eucharist as they define it.

 

Adam,

I understand and I'm feeling much the same way. I said I would bow out of this thread, but there are some things I really need to say. My experience is the same. I was taught the Real Presence as both the spiritual and material Presence of Christ.

As I said earlier in the thread: "Our Rector does teach the Real Presence of Christ, but does not rely upon "Aristotle's metaphysics" as Catholics have done in Transubstantiation. We yield to the Mystery of the Real Presence and believe upon Consecration, the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is present both Spiritually and Physically. . . . .I have considered Transubstantiation, and I know some Anglo Catholics accept it."

I do not have a problem with Transubstantiation. It is one way of viewing the metaphysics of this Divine Mystery. It is certainly not in any way against-Anglican theology. Some Anglicans believe in Transubstantiation, some believe in Consubstantiation, and some (like myself) simply yield to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist.


Anglicans who believe in Transubstantiation, or take no issue with it, are not crossing the line in their theology. They are still Anglicans; and I see no disrespect to Anglicanism for believing in Transubstantiation. The view that this belief is disrespectful to Rome, who does not believe Anglican Clerics have the Authority to effect a change in the Eucharist as they define it, is a rather surprising one. My first gut response is, "So what?"

Rome's opinion of Anglican Holy Orders is just that: an opinion; and it has no effect on my Anglican faith whatsoever. Despite many very similar views between Catholics and Anglo Catholics; Anglicans are not under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. I do not need Rome's permission or approval for my beliefs.

As I post earlier:

On The Eucharist: Defanging the Black Rubric, Posted on March 21, 2012 by Fr. Jonathan
". . . .It has to be acknowledged up front that the Black Rubric is an embarrassment. At best, it is an unclear statement of a partial truth about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. At worst, it is an out and out denial of the Real Presence that was grandfathered into the prayer book for reasons of political expediency rather than theological clarity. Nevertheless, it needs to be examined by those who wish to embrace classical Anglicanism, not just because it is a part of Anglican history, but also because, seen from the proper perspective, it sheds light on the very thing that it attempts to darken, the Anglican view of Christ’s presence in the sacrament." Link: http://conciliaranglican.wordpress.com/."

And:

"Anglican history reveals swings towards Protestantism and swings back towards Catholicism. It is a pendulum that continues to swing. I think we should not allow any bias or aversion to beliefs associated with Catholics in Communion with Rome to overshadow the truth of the Real Presence as revealed in Holy Scripture and expressed in classical Anglicanism."

And:
Originally, submission to the 39 Articles was required and assent was to be given according to the literal sense of the Articles. However, the Lambeth Conference of 1968 recommended that assent to the Articles no longer be required of clergy, but that they be understood as an historic document---and the recommendation was adopted. Link: http://www.lambethconference.org/res...68/1968-43.cfm.

Anglicanism is known for diversity. Some Anglicans lean more towards Catholicism; and some lean more towards Reformed theology.

I respect the beliefs of Anglicans more inclined toward Reformed theology. I ask that the beliefs of those of us who are Anglo Catholic be respected as well.

Also, using Holy Scripture to support my beliefs is not unfair to anyone. I do not use Scripture against anyone, which has been suggested. I submit to Holy Scripture, and the Tradition of 2000 years of Christian interpretation handed down from the Apostles. Anglicanism is, after all, grounded in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

Also, the way in which atheists view Christianity has no effect on my beliefs either; nor does what is going on in the Scientific Community. I don't need Scientific proof to believe in the Resurrection of our Lord or the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. That's not to say that Scientific evidence doesn't exist.

I will conclude by saying: Charitable discussion involves a respectful exchange of ideas without personal attacks, accusations, or assumptions regarding the motives of others.

We are called to love one another. I pray that the Holy Spirit will enable us to do so. As our Rector once said, "If we can't get it right among ourselves, we have no business going out into the world." To that, I say Amen.

Peace and blessings to all,
Anna

 

Yes, "peace and blessings to all."

...Scottish Monk

 

Anglican theologians have always maintained that Christ's true Body is in heaven and not in the Sacrament but that we eat and drink his body and blood after a spiritual manner ONLY. I have no idea how an Anglican can manage to get past this. this isn't just in the 39 articles but also within the writings of many Anglican churchmen though the ages. whilst I've been accused of 'revisionism' by others here it would seem that revisionism inn't limited to social liberals after-all. Anglo-Catholics are indeed a very important part of the Anglican faith but I feel Anglo-Catholics go overboard and really don't represent the official party line of the Anglican Church in regards to Eucharistic theology.

 

I too believe that Christ is in heaven as the Nicene Creed tells us! How-and-ever, Christ said ,'this is my Body,' and I believe Him. The whole thing is a Mystery, as is so much in our religion. Never-the-less, Christ said it and I believe Him still. Are we to understand that it was just a slip of the tongue?

 

This discussion has been going for 6 pages now and I don't know that anyone has changed their mind on what they believe. On another forum I subscribe to the knockers of religion bought up the subject about an Pentecostal Pastor who recently died after being bitten by a deadly snake. http://abcnews.go.com/US/serpent-han...5#.T8d0ltVumSo

They handle these deadly snakes based on this scripture Mark 16:17-18

I sometimes question in my heart some of what was written and pray about it constantly... I realise that some of the things our Saviour said and were written years lately may have been taken out of context.

I view the transubstantiation doctrine in a similar way, and figure that the Lords Supper is a mystery worthy of my complete attention and refuse to sweat the small stuff over doctrine surrounding it.

 

You are probably right. We are all very passionate about what we believe. I will say that this has been an interesting thread, disagreements and all.

The interesting thing about this Mark Chapter 16 passage is that it has been questioned as perhaps a later addition. I've read about this in a number of sources.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) An Ecumenical Study Bible:

"Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at verse 8. One Authority concludes the book with the shorter ending; others include the shorter ending and then continue with 9-20. In most authorities verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse 8, though in some of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful."

"16.9-20: Two attempts to provide a satisfactory ending to the Gospel of Mark. The shorter ending. Although present in some manuscripts, this ending is clearly different from the rest of Mark in style and understanding of Jesus."

"16.9-20: The longer ending. Possibly written in the early second century and appended to the Gospel later in the second century. These sentences borrow some motifs from the other Gospels and contain several unusual apocryphal elements. . . ." The note goes on to list references to the other Gospels.

So, sadly for this pastor who died handling snakes, the passage of Scripture which speaks of handling snakes may have been added at a later date, meaning it may not have been contained in the autograph.

This is an example (a tragic one) of why we must be careful about the Biblical translations we trust.

Gordon,
I think you just struck the cord of agreement on this thread. The Holy Eucharist is indeed a Mystery, a Divine Mystery. I doubt any of us would disagree with that.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

Yes Anna I have read all the commentaries on what was supposed to be added and I figured that at the end of the day all the documents were added at a later date, e.g.. years after they happened so who is to say which document was correct. As I said I tend to pray for guidance when I read the scripture and although I do read commentaries I figure my take on it is just as valid as the person who wrote the commentary.

My position is this -

1. Is the Bible the inspired word of God? Yes I believe that to be true and I have no doubt that is the case.
2. Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? That I am not sure of as we don't have the original documents to go back to, but we do have fairly ancient copies of the original documents.