Eucharist...

[Aymn27]

OK...I think I know that Anglicanism does not define what happens at consecration. But...could somebody share with me Anglican Eucharistic theology? Is transubstantiation a viable explanation? Do most view it as only spiritual? What is the difference in views between anglo-caths and evangelical on the Eucharist? Any info you could give me would be appreciated (links, books, etc would be wonderful)...

Blessings,
Aaron

[benedictine]

We believe in the Real Presence, as a whole. Transubstabtiation, and Consubstantiation are both viable belifs in the Real Presence. All of the Apostolic Churches believe in the Real Presence, but the Roman Church believes in Transubstantiation, and Lutherans (at least ELCA) in Consubstantiation. Orthodox and Anglicans do not define this as a whole. As an Anglican, you are free to believe in any of three. Anglo-Catholics are morelikely to believe in Transubstantiation, but I do not, even though I am Anglo-Catholic.

[Aymn27]

transubstantiation then what? I mean what exactly happens in your opinion? Is it truly his body and blood or is it what??

thanks,
aaron

[PaladinValer]

Both transubstantiationism and consubstantiationism both teach that the physical Body and Blood are present. The difference is simply about the bread and wine.

[pmcleanj]

OK...I think I know that Anglicanism does not define what happens at consecration.
Nope, I don't think you do.

Your follow-up questions seem to be trying to nail down a definition. You'll get some definitions from some of us, but they'll be personal understandings, not an Anglican Norm.

Here are the norms:

We say at the Eucharist: "grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood." So, within one clause of a much longer sentence, we affirm both that 1) we receive bread and wine in remembrance, and that 2) we are partakers of his Body and Blood.

In the prayer of humble access, we say "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." Here we clearly affirm that what we are partaking is flesh and blood. But we also affirm that what we experience in the Eucharist is an interior or inward cleansing; and that the experience of 'communion' is an ongoing or 'evermore' spiritual experience.

The words of administration are "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". This is unequivocal that what we are receiving is the Body of our Lord. But it simultaneously states that we are eating in remembrance, and are feeding 'in the heart, by faith'. The words of administration for the Cup are similarly bi-valued: "The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful."

In the thanksgiving after the Eucharist, we say "we most heartily thank thee that thou dost graciously feed us, in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most preacious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ". Again, the double message: this is the Body and Blood, but as such it is spiritual food and a mystery.

From the Catechism, we have:
Catechist: What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's Supper?
Answer: Bread and Wine, which the Lord has commanded to be received.
Catechist: What is the inward part, or thing signified?
Answer: The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.
There you have it again: "verily and indeed" Body and Blood, and yet still Bread and Wine because *that* is what the Lord has commanded to be received.

From the articles:
"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 a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith". Once again, a clear affirmation that this meal is an actual partaking in Christ's Flesh and Blood, and once again a clear affirmation that faith, spiritually inward feeding, and the actual substance of Bread and Wine, are essential elements of the Sacrament. Regarding the apostrosizing of "transubstantiation" in this article, I happen to agree with the authors of the article that plain words and Scripture (not to mention empiricism and modern scientific method) provide no support for the notion -- but at the same time, we have to remember that the propositions of the Articles are NOT a "statement of faith" or promulgation of dogma. So people can accept transubstantiation and remain members in good standing (just wrong ;) )<-- just a joke, guys. You're welcome to return the favour and call me wrong :)

[Aymn27]

Nope, I don't think you do.

Your follow-up questions seem to be trying to nail down a definition. You'll get some definitions from some of us, but they'll be personal understandings, not an Anglican Norm.

Here are the norms:

We say at the Eucharist: "grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood." So, within one clause of a much longer sentence, we affirm both that 1) we receive bread and wine in remembrance, and that 2) we are partakers of his Body and Blood.

In the prayer of humble access, we say "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." Here we clearly affirm that what we are partaking is flesh and blood. But we also affirm that what we experience in the Eucharist is an interior or inward cleansing; and that the experience of 'communion' is an ongoing or 'evermore' spiritual experience.

The words of administration are "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". This is unequivocal that what we are receiving is the Body of our Lord. But it simultaneously states that we are eating in remembrance, and are feeding 'in the heart, by faith'. The words of administration for the Cup are similarly bi-valued: "The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful."

In the thanksgiving after the Eucharist, we say "we most heartily thank thee that thou dost graciously feed us, in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most preacious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ". Again, the double message: this is the Body and Blood, but as such it is spiritual food and a mystery.

From the Catechism, we have:
Catechist: What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's Supper?
Answer: Bread and Wine, which the Lord has commanded to be received.
Catechist: What is the inward part, or thing signified?
Answer: The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.
There you have it again: "verily and indeed" Body and Blood, and yet still Bread and Wine because *that* is what the Lord has commanded to be received.

From the articles:
"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 a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith". Once again, a clear affirmation that this meal is an actual partaking in Christ's Flesh and Blood, and once again a clear affirmation that faith, spiritually inward feeding, and the actual substance of Bread and Wine, are essential elements of the Sacrament. Regarding the apostrosizing of "transubstantiation" in this article, I happen to agree with the authors of the article that plain words and Scripture (not to mention empiricism and modern scientific method) provide no support for the notion -- but at the same time, we have to remember that the propositions of the Articles are NOT a "statement of faith" or promulgation of dogma. So people can accept transubstantiation and remain members in good standing (just wrong ;) )<-- just a joke, guys. You're welcome to return the favour and call me wrong :)
Clear as mud!!! Hehehe...

Ok, I DO understand that it is regarded a "mystery" in Anglicanism, but you are correct, I am trying to nail down some sort of "definition" or theology. I am somewhat confused about the statement in the 39 articles (ok ok..beating a dead horse) on transubstantiation, yet some Anglicans have eucharistic adoration (which if the bread and wine are still there - it would be idolatry). Also, Jesus says in scripture "This is my body..." and "unless you eat the flesh...and drink his blood...", there is no indication that it remains bread (this is probably my Catholic indoctrination showing).

As I understand it, the Orthodox teach a sort of transmutation or transgeneration...but don't define it either (however believe that Jesus is truly present), and they don't have eucharistic adoration.

How does the teaching of transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of the Sacrament."??

Thanks for your patience in responding!!

Aaron

[PaladinValer]

The 39 Articles have no more place in the Anglican Communion. They had for a time when Calvinists made inroads into our church.

[RobNJ]

That's one of the things Anglicanism doesn't "nail down" ... This is why a very Anglo-Catholic believing Anglican can be kneeling at the rail next to very Calvinistic believing Anglican...each one is receiving the Eucharist according to their beliefs, and the church's teachings..


If it made sense, it wouldn't be a mystery!!;)

[pmcleanj]

How does the teaching of transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of the Sacrament."??

A Sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof". Look at the Catechism definition of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. A sacrament must consist of both parts: the outward sign and the inward grace. If the Bread and Wine are physically transmuted into physical flesh and blood, then the grace is both overt -- outward and external; and inward. There is no longer a dynamic tension between the sign and the grace, but rather merely a physical consuming of a physical -- if miraculous -- meal. The grace is now effected mechanistically: eating God cures Sin just as eating oranges cures scurvy. I know that's a rather blunt and tasteless analogy, and I apologize -- but a literal understanding of transubstantiation is just that blunt to those who see the dynamic tension between Sign and Grace as an essential characteristic of Sacrament.

[R.J.S]

The 39 Articles have no more place in the Anglican Communion. They had for a time when Calvinists made inroads into our church.

Tulips under the altar eh? :D

[Iron Sun 254]

A Sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof". Look at the Catechism definition of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. A sacrament must consist of both parts: the outward sign and the inward grace. If the Bread and Wine are physically transmuted into physical flesh and blood, then the grace is both overt -- outward and external; and inward. There is no longer a dynamic tension between the sign and the grace, but rather merely a physical consuming of a physical -- if miraculous -- meal. The grace is now effected mechanistically: eating God cures Sin just as eating oranges cures scurvy. I know that's a rather blunt and tasteless analogy, and I apologize -- but a literal understanding of transubstantiation is just that blunt to those who see the dynamic tension between Sign and Grace as an essential characteristic of Sacrament.

That's a very good way of explaining it. With transubstantiation, the miracle is with the bread and wine...with "real presence" the miracle is with us.

[gitlance]

What a great question! I, myself, do believe in both a physical and spiritual presence in the Holy Communion. I, however, do NOT define it as transubstantiation or anything of that nature. I honestly do not know how Christ's Body and Blood are made physically and spiritually present. I just know that they are, and that has to be enough for me.

Then again, I'm pretty Anglo-Catholic as far as that goes, so I probably hold closer to a Roman belief than some of my brothers and sisters here. Still, I do not define what happens at the Consecration as my Roman brethren do.

Yeah, I know, I confused it even more for you. Haha. Christ's peace! :wave:

[Aymn27]

What a great question! I, myself, do believe in both a physical and spiritual presence in the Holy Communion. I, however, do NOT define it as transubstantiation or anything of that nature. I honestly do not know how Christ's Body and Blood are made physically and spiritually present. I just know that they are, and that has to be enough for me.

Then again, I'm pretty Anglo-Catholic as far as that goes, so I probably hold closer to a Roman belief than some of my brothers and sisters here. Still, I do not define what happens at the Consecration as my Roman brethren do.

Yeah, I know, I confused it even more for you. Haha. Christ's peace! :wave:
No...actually that makes sense!! Hehehe....

My problem I guess lies in the apparent rejection of (and attack on) transubstantiation in the 39 articles. To me, it should suffice to say, "We don't know what happens, but we know it is Christ's Body and Blood", therefore leaving it a true mystery. I can accept that on faith (which is sorta what the EO do).

Thanks for insight.

Aaron

[Albion]

Tulips under the altar eh? :D

Uh, no.

While there are Anglicans in good standing who do not believe the Creeds and statements of faith of their church, the Articles of Religion are in every prayer book. They were adopted by the American church over two hundred years ago and never were repealed. It was only in the last generation that all clergy were not required to assent to them. And that's just in the US. In many countries and in other Anglican Churches, they are accepted as always. To say that Calvinists made inroads into our church "for a time" would be accurate--if "for a time" means 95% of the time since the church was established as independent of Rome in the 1500s. ;) That's a lot longer a time than the opponents of reformed Christianity have been trying to bury them.

Even so, those who like to say that the Articles have no place in the Church point to the fact that in the US church's 1979 version of the Prayebook, they were given a heading of Historical Documents and had the Athanasian Creed, the Definition of the Natures of Christ from the Council of Chalcedon, and the Lambeth Quadrilaterals of 1886 and 1888 added to that section.

The next time you hear a flip answer that the Articles don't count to anyone anymore, ask if the speaker similarly doesn't believe all these other statements, either.

[PaladinValer]

Just in the US? I think not.

[gitlance]

No...actually that makes sense!! Hehehe....

My problem I guess lies in the apparent rejection of (and attack on) transubstantiation in the 39 articles. To me, it should suffice to say, "We don't know what happens, but we know it is Christ's Body and Blood", therefore leaving it a true mystery. I can accept that on faith (which is sorta what the EO do).

Thanks for insight.

Aaron

Well, contrary to the 39 Articles, ECUSA especially has gone through a lot of re-Catholicizing in recent years. According to their official website, there is both a physical and spiritual presence of Christ in the Holy Communion. Also, the 39 articles were not originally in Anglicanism... not until Elizabeth anyway. I agree with you, however, that it is senseless to attack the position of transubstantiation. It is just as valid a way of believing in the Real Presence as consubstantiation or any other '-ation'. That is definitely a left-over of Calvinistic influences.

The fact of the matter, however, is that while the articles may still be in the BCP, few Anglicans in ECUSA, ACiC, CofE, etc, fully adhere to them. We generally say that the only things required to believe in order to be an Anglican are the statements in the 2 historic Creeds of the Church: Nicene and Apostles.

But then again, I would also say that there are probably very few Anglicans, with the exception of die-hard Anglo-Catholics, who accept transubstantiation. We generally accept a more historical view (along with the Orthodox) of the Holy Communion.

You are more than welcome to accept transubstantiation in the Anglican church, however. I have never met an Anglican in Communion with Canterbury who will attack you for believing in transubstantiation. It's something of a matter of "personal piety."

[R.J.S]

Personally I hold to real presence and prefer not to attempt to explain it. :)

[Albion]

It is just as valid a way of believing in the Real Presence as consubstantiation or any other '-ation'. That is definitely a left-over of Calvinistic influences.

Lance, you are a temperate person and one who attempts to choose his words carefully. But saying what was said above is the kind of thing that just makes me shake my head.

Transubstantiation was only made the Roman interpretation of the Real Presence 300 years before the Reformation, which threw it back out again. Then, although you are right that the Articles didn't come along until the latter part of the 1500s, their anti-Transubstantiaton statement was unchallenged until recent times as being the normal Anglican view.

The way you and PV like to put it, "Calvinism" polluted the Church of England for a couple of decades and then the abberation was gone and the Church resumed its two-millennim long belief in semi-Transubstantiation (carnal, but we don't attempt to explain how it happens quite as the RC's do). The opposite is more the historic case, regardless of how any one among us wants to believe about the sacrament.

To make matters worse, what Calvin believed IS REAL PRESENCE.

It is only the representational/purely symbolic view of the Supper that is against REAL Presence. Throughout the liturgy we have Protestant theology, and along with it we are still saying that we believe in the real body and blood of Christ being present. And that liturgy comes through from hundreds of years of Anglican history in which the Articles and the rejection of Transubstantiation were the standard.

[PaladinValer]

Just because it was "only" declared 300 years ago doesn't mean it isn't a valid view.

In fact, the logic behind it is sound.

And quit the false history. Anglicanism has long believed that the Eucharist had the physical presence, since Day One. The Calvinistic influence was during Edward VI's short reign and during Cromwell's unholy experiment.

[Aymn27]

Lance, you are a temperate person and one who attempts to choose his words carefully. But saying what was said above is the kind of thing that just makes me shake my head.

Transubstantiation was only made the Roman interpretation of the Real Presence 300 years before the Reformation, which threw it back out again. Then, although you are right that the Articles didn't come along until the latter part of the 1500s, their anti-Transubstantiaton statement was unchallenged until recent times as being the normal Anglican view.

The way you and PV like to put it, "Calvinism" polluted the Church of England for a couple of decades and then the abberation was gone and the Church resumed its two-millennim long belief in semi-Transubstantiation (carnal, but we don't attempt to explain how it happens quite as the RC's do). The opposite is more the historic case, regardless of how any one among us wants to believe about the sacrament.

To make matters worse, what Calvin believed IS REAL PRESENCE.

It is only the representational/purely symbolic view of the Supper that is against REAL Presence. Throughout the liturgy we have Protestant theology, and along with it we are still saying that we believe in the real body and blood of Christ being present. And that liturgy comes through from hundreds of years of Anglican history in which the Articles and the rejection of Transubstantiation were the standard.
Albion,

If you don't mind, could you please give me some reasons for disagreement with transubstantiation - I would really like the Scriptural reasons behind it!! This is very interesting, and for the life of me, I can't understand how someone can say that Jesus is present in the Eucharist (body, blood, soul, divinity) and then reject transubstantiation...do you agree he is physically and spiritually present? Is it not the Spirit that gives life? (Does it require faith on the part of the believer as to whether or not he is truly present. Does his presence leave after the service is over??)

Thanks for your response..

Aaron

[RobNJ]

To make matters worse, what Calvin believed IS REAL PRESENCE.



True, the concept of it being "purly symbolic" wasn't from Calvin. You can thank or blame Zwingli for that.

[gitlance]

Lance, you are a temperate person and one who attempts to choose his words carefully. But saying what was said above is the kind of thing that just makes me shake my head.

Transubstantiation was only made the Roman interpretation of the Real Presence 300 years before the Reformation, which threw it back out again. Then, although you are right that the Articles didn't come along until the latter part of the 1500s, their anti-Transubstantiaton statement was unchallenged until recent times as being the normal Anglican view.

The way you and PV like to put it, "Calvinism" polluted the Church of England for a couple of decades and then the abberation was gone and the Church resumed its two-millennim long belief in semi-Transubstantiation (carnal, but we don't attempt to explain how it happens quite as the RC's do). The opposite is more the historic case, regardless of how any one among us wants to believe about the sacrament.

To make matters worse, what Calvin believed IS REAL PRESENCE.

It is only the representational/purely symbolic view of the Supper that is against REAL Presence. Throughout the liturgy we have Protestant theology, and along with it we are still saying that we believe in the real body and blood of Christ being present. And that liturgy comes through from hundreds of years of Anglican history in which the Articles and the rejection of Transubstantiation were the standard.

Hey Albion,

Thank you for the kind words.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said, though I'm not sure. When I said that was a leftover of Calvinistic influence, I was referring to the need to "explain away" transubstantiation as a possibility. I do not wish for the Anglican Church to come out and start saying that we believe in transubstantiation, because even I do not define what I believe as such. I think the Church has a good via media by saying that we believe in the Real Presence, but we don't know how (whether by consubstantiation, transubstantiation, etc) it is made manifest. That is also, as I understand it, the traditional Eastern Orthodox viewpoint.

[Albion]

Hey Albion,

Thank you for the kind words.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said, though I'm not sure. When I said that was a leftover of Calvinistic influence, I was referring to the need to "explain away" transubstantiation as a possibility. I do not wish for the Anglican Church to come out and start saying that we believe in transubstantiation, because even I do not define what I believe as such. I think the Church has a good via media by saying that we believe in the Real Presence, but we don't know how (whether by consubstantiation, transubstantiation, etc) it is made manifest. That is also, as I understand it, the traditional Eastern Orthodox viewpoint.

Well, we all should know that it's easy to misunderstand what the other person means on forums like this. My points of emphasis were that--

--It should not be assumed that either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation represents what the historic church of the first thousand and more years believed,

--the belief in the spiritual presence (as described by the Articles) is as much a belief in the Real Presence as believing in Trans or Con., and

--The spiritual Real Presence has been, regardless of how any individual Anglican of today sees the issue, the one that our church has officially accepted for most of its (Post-Reformation) history.

"Leftover of Calvinist influence" is just not real history. Not "leftover," and not "Calvinist influence" any more than what you believe should be called "Roman Catholic inroads."

[gitlance]

Well, we all should know that it's easy to misunderstand what the other person means on forums like this. My points of emphasis were that--

--It should not be assumed that either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation represents what the historic church of the first thousand and more years believed,

Completely agree. The Church never defined what happens at the Eucharist, until Rome coined transubstantiation somewhere between the 12th and 13th centuries. The East still does not define what happens in the Eucharist.

--the belief in the spiritual presence (as described by the Articles) is as much a belief in the Real Presence as believing in Trans or Con., and

That may be so. However, it was never taught and officially accepted by anyone in the Church until Calvin. The very earliest Church accepted a physical and spiritual presence as official doctrine, even if a few individual bishops/priests/lay-people denied it.

--The spiritual Real Presence has been, regardless of how any individual Anglican of today sees the issue, the one that our church has officially accepted for most of its (Post-Reformation) history.

And yet there are always the prayers of Consecration in the ancient BCPs that would seem to imply otherwise. Not to mention that there were always those on both sides of the fence in Anglicanism, even when Elizabeth reigned. There were those who accepted something like transubstantiation, and those who only accepted a spiritual presence. (Thank God nobody ever tried to make official doctrine in the Church that completely denied the Real Presence altogether.)

"Leftover of Calvinist influence" is just not real history. Not "leftover," and not "Calvinist influence" any more than what you believe should be called "Roman Catholic inroads."

Well, I would have to say, as I said above, that there have always been those in the Church on both sides of the issue, though most Anglicans have probably stayed right in the middle... not asserting or denying both a physical and spiritual presence, but instead just choosing not to worry themselves with it. After all, at least the very essence of what matters is that Christ's Flesh and Blood are "really and truly" present in the Eucharist.

[R.J.S]

True, the concept of it being "purly symbolic" wasn't from Calvin. You can thank or blame Zwingli for that.

Not 100% true, Zwingli wrote to the King that he only used the term symbolic to ensure his readers distinguished his view from Rome. See: Concerning Zwingli's view, Elmer S. Freeman [The Lord's Supper in Protestantism (New York: Macmillan, 1945), 62] has shown that Zwingli was not a Zwinglian by quoting from a confession written by Zwingli to King Francis: "If I have called this a commemoration, I have done so in order to controvert those who would make of it a sacrifice. . . . We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord's Supper; yea, that there is no communion without such presence. . . . We believe that the true Body of Christ is eaten in Communion, not in a gross and carnal manner, but in a spiritual and sacramental manner, by the religious, believing, and pious heart.

From: http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/david_bromlow/what_is_meant_by_the_spiritual_presence_of_christ_in_the_lords_supper.htm

[Albion]

That may be so. However, it was never taught and officially accepted by anyone in the Church until Calvin. The very earliest Church accepted a physical and spiritual presence as official doctrine, even if a few individual bishops/priests/lay-people denied it.

I contend that that is a misunderstanding of what the Early Church taught and believed. That something happened, that the bread and wine were not just the same after the consecration as before, is true. However, the change was a mystical, not a carnal one until about 800 years later.

And yet there are always the prayers of Consecration in the ancient BCPs that would seem to imply otherwise.

Absolutely not. They are only thought to read that way by those who want to put a carnal presence into them.

Not to mention that there were always those on both sides of the fence in Anglicanism, even when Elizabeth reigned. There were those who accepted something like transubstantiation, and those who only accepted a spiritual presence. (Thank God nobody ever tried to make official doctrine in the Church that completely denied the Real Presence altogether.)

Well, of course. There were those in the Church of England in those days who believed in Papal Supremacy, too! And then there were the Puritans. Almost everyone was in the Church of England for awhile, whatever they believed, hoping that the solution that the Articles and BCP represented would not hold up and that their own view would emerge, either back to Rome or to something at the other extreme. But this doesn't say anything about the mind of the Anglican mainstream. After Elizabeth most of that settled down as the extremists on both sides departed the Church

but instead just choosing not to worry themselves with it. After all, at least the very essence of what matters is that Christ's Flesh and Blood are "really and truly" present in the Eucharist.

I think this is some "easy way" out or soft solution that Anglo-Catholics have taken to using in recent times. The historic church never took that line at all.

As you know, the Articles very precisely define the nature of the sacrament--and as having no physical, carnal quality. "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." I know that over the past century and an half, some Anglicans have disavowed the Articles and some have taken up that explanation you just gave, but there was no equivocation on the part of the historic Church, no "just choosing not to worry themselves with it" as you put it.

Cheers

[PaladinValer]

Anglicans however do view Holy Communion as a sacrifice.

[gitlance]

In regards to whether or not Christ physically and spiritually inhabits the elements at Communion...


It would seem to me that if Christ is indeed fully God and fully man, and cannot be divided (for to do so would be to forfeit His nature), then if He inhabits the Communion elements, He must inhabit them both physically and spiritually, for His substance and nature cannot be divided.

Christ does not sacrifice His physical side to indwell the elements... no, to the contrary, He fully becomes present in them: body and blood, soul and divinity; for, you cannot divide the man from God and still have Christ.

[PaladinValer]

Gitlance, that was excellent!

It would seem that, as both monophysitism and monothelitism are heresies, if we truly do believe in the Real Presence, that the wholeness of the Lord is there, since the two Natures and Wills are One Person, without separation.

Bravo!

[gtsecc]

Gitlance, that was excellent!

It would seem that, as both monophysitism and monothelitism are heresies, if we truly do believe in the Real Presence, that the wholeness of the Lord is there, since the two Natures and Wills are One Person, without separation.

Bravo!

I agree. That was a stunning post.

[Albion]

I agree. That was a stunning post.

Well, at least we weren't left without a mention of some heresy, whether or not it fit. ;)

Neither the Monophysite nor the Monothelite heresies, however, have anything to do with the presence of Christ in the Supper being spritiual only.

[gitlance]

Well, at least we weren't left without a mention of some heresy, whether or not it fit. ;)

Neither the Monophysite nor the Monothelite heresies, however, have anything to do with the presence of Christ in the Supper being spritiual only.

To assert that Christ makes himself truly present in the Eucharist is to assert that CHRIST makes himself present. Christ, by nature, is a duality -- fully God and fully man. You cannot separate the two and have a "physical Christ" or a "spiritual Christ". It is impossible if you wish to still have Christ. Therefore, if Christ really inhabits the Communion elements, He must be there in the entirety of His person: body, blood, soul, divinity.

[PaladinValer]

Logically valid and sound argument :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Aymn27]

Gitlance, that was excellent!

It would seem that, as both monophysitism and monothelitism are heresies, if we truly do believe in the Real Presence, that the wholeness of the Lord is there, since the two Natures and Wills are One Person, without separation.

Bravo!
Excellent point - that has NEVER occured to me before (and I am a strict believer in transub.). Wow!! Thanks.

Aaron

[Albion]

To assert that Christ makes himself truly present in the Eucharist is to assert that CHRIST makes himself present. Christ, by nature, is a duality -- fully God and fully man. You cannot separate the two and have a "physical Christ" or a "spiritual Christ". It is impossible if you wish to still have Christ. Therefore, if Christ really inhabits the Communion elements, He must be there in the entirety of His person: body, blood, soul, divinity.

As I said, it sounds good only at first glance. God can be present in any way he wills. I am sure you believe that Christ is in our hearts and with us all the time everywhere. How can he do this, using the understanding you have bought into, without being, well, lumpy?

IMO, you and Aaron have just been seduced by someone else's faulty logic and homemade theologizing. Do you think no one ever thought of this neat "proof" before, including all the Anglicans throughout all the ages who believe in both the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed which spells out the natures of Christl and the Articles of Religion which spell out a spiritual presence? They're both in the BCp, you know. Why didn't anyone notice what you've just awakened to? Think!

[PaladinValer]

Which Person of God though, Albion? Only one Person has a physical form, and He isn't here on Earth anymore.

The Holy Bible, as well as Scripture, says that the Holy Spirit is now here, and He doesn't have a physical form.

The only time the Son is ever tangibly known now on Earth is through the Holy Eucharist. And when He is there, He is wholly there. You cannot pick and choose.

[gitlance]

Yes, the question is: which member of the Godhead dwells within us? Is it God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit?

I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. Mark 1:8

I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Matthew 3:11

Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit'. John 3:5

Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:39

This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you. John 14:17

When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit'. John 20:22

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 1 Cor. 2:12

The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, ‘Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ Acts 8:15-19

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 1 Cor 3:16

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 1 Cor. 6:19

For in him every one of God’s promises is a ‘Yes.’ For this reason it is through him that we say the ‘Amen’, to the glory of God. But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment. 2 Cor. 1:20-22

But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Rom. 8:9



It is the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, who dwells within us.

It is Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity -- fully God and fully man -- who dwells within the consecrated elements of Holy Communion. Therefore, because Jesus Christ dwells within the elements, He must dwell within them fully, both in His humanity and in His divinity.

[Albion]

Yes, the question is: which member of the Godhead dwells within us? Is it God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit?



It is the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, who dwells within us.

It is Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity -- fully God and fully man -- who dwells within the consecrated elements of Holy Communion. Therefore, because Jesus Christ dwells within the elements, He must dwell within them fully, both in His humanity and in His divinity.

What do you believe Jesus to have meant when he told his followers that he would be with them unto the end of the world? Matt 28.20

Was that a reference only to his ability to be with them in the Lord's Supper but not in any other way?

[PaladinValer]

It is through the Eucharist that He is with us.

[gitlance]

Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.
Luke 24:35

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Acts 2:42

On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight.
Acts 20:7

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Cor. 10:16

Lord God of our Fathers: God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: Open our eyes to see your hand at work in the world about us. Deliver us from the presumption of coming to this Table for solace only, and not for strength; for pardon only, and not for renewal. Let the grace of this Holy Communion make us one body, one spirit in Christ, that we may worthily serve the world in his name.

Risen Lord, be known to us in the breaking of the Bread.

BCP 373

The Holy Spirit reveals Him to us through our hearts, scripture, tradition, and reason -- but Jesus Christ is made fully known in the Breaking of the Bread: the Holy Eucharist.

[Brian Augustyn]

It is through the Eucharist that He is with us.

Only through the Eucharist?

Christ is not with us in any other way? And not with Christians who don't take Communion very often?

Brian

[gitlance]

Only through the Eucharist?

Christ is not with us in any other way? And not with Christians who don't take Communion very often?

Brian

Christ's Spirit (The Holy Spirit) permeates all things and indeed indwells the believer.

Christ, the Son of God, in the duality of His nature, only inhabits His people through the consumption of His Body and Blood in the Holy Communion. That is how we receive Him in His fullest -- physical and spiritual, soul and divinity, body and blood.

Remember, He was made known to the disciples "in the breaking of the bread".

[julian the apostate]

i just started looking through this thread,, been avoiding it, \\

and then i saw:


It would seem that, as both monophysitism and monothelitism are heresies, if we truly do believe in the Real Presence, that the wholeness of the Lord is there, since the two Natures and Wills are One Person, without separation.
....................................

that was brilliant!
what in the world got into you gitlance

[Albion]

Christ's Spirit (The Holy Spirit) permeates all things and indeed indwells the believer.

Christ, the Son of God, in the duality of His nature, only inhabits His people through the consumption of His Body and Blood in the Holy Communion. That is how we receive Him in His fullest -- physical and spiritual, soul and divinity, body and blood.

Remember, He was made known to the disciples "in the breaking of the bread".

When he promised that he would be with us until the end of the world, was he referring only to being with us at Communion time and not any other time? Does that mean that if one doesn't go to Communion, as for instance Quakers and some other churches don't, does that mean that Christ cannot be with them although they accept him by Faith?

[PaladinValer]

Only through the Eucharist?

Chiefly, as it is the only direct way.

Christ is not with us in any other way? And not with Christians who don't take Communion very often?

We can know Him through each other, but that is indirect.:)

that was brilliant!
what in the world got into you gitlance

That was me actually, although it was based on what Gitlance said, so by all means give him the credit for the original idea; I merely fleshed it out :P ;)

[gtsecc]

Does that mean that if one doesn't go to Communion, as for instance Quakers and some other churches don't, does that mean that Christ cannot be with them although they accept him by Faith?
He is with them only symbolically. ;)

[Albion]

He is with them only symbolically. ;)

OK, I get the joke and appreciate it.

HOWEVER, I think the question deserves to be answered seriously, too, by someone sharing that idea that Christ cannot be present with Christians except in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

[gtsecc]

Christ can reveal himself to anyone in any manner He chooses. When, why, and How are really a mystery.

[Albion]

Christ can reveal himself to anyone in any manner He chooses. When, why, and How are really a mystery.

I agree.

A statement like the following (emphases mine), "You cannot separate the two and have a "physical Christ" or a "spiritual Christ". It is impossible if you wish to still have Christ. Therefore, if Christ really inhabits the Communion elements, He must be there in the entirety of His person: body, blood, soul, divinity" appears to impose upon Christ our own concepts of how he is capable of being with his people.

[PaladinValer]

No it doesn't. It is merely adhering to the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

[gitlance]

I agree.

A statement like the following (emphases mine), "You cannot separate the two and have a "physical Christ" or a "spiritual Christ". It is impossible if you wish to still have Christ. Therefore, if Christ really inhabits the Communion elements, He must be there in the entirety of His person: body, blood, soul, divinity" appears to impose upon Christ our own concepts of how he is capable of being with his people.

And yet, those are not our concepts, but His. He is with us in that the Comforter -- whom He sent, because He was going back to the Father -- makes Him known to us. But "knowing" Him and "communing" with Him are too different things. We know Him through the inspiration of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. We commune with Him in His own nature and essence -- as 2nd person of the Trinity -- only in the Holy Eucharist.

[Albion]

And yet, those are not our concepts, but His.

Certainly that is not so. They are "our" (meaning your) concepts of how Christ can and cannot manifest himself that we are discussing. The notion put forth that he cannot be present with his followers as he promised he would be, unless he were also in the body that he wore on Earth, and only in the Eucharist, is a human speculation neither logical nor Biblical, in my view.

He is with us in that the Comforter -- whom He sent, because He was going back to the Father -- makes Him known to us.

Well, that won't work for you because you are there referring to the Holy Spirit, not to Christ. You took pains to identify Christ as having a body (and then said that he cannot be present among us without it), so you can't at the same time confuse the persons of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit doesn't have the physical nature that you said Jesus has. And of course he doesn't. If you want to want to argue that Jesus went back to the Father and so sends the Holy Spirit in his place, how can you also argue for the presence of Christ in the Communion elements? It's a contradiction.

"But "knowing" Him and "communing" with Him are too different things.

Exactly. You were talking about him being present with us, not us "knowing" him. It is to your point about presence, not knowing, to which I was answering. You were talking about his presence in the Eucharist, talking about "Real Presence." You used the term repeatedly. If you had been talking only about us "knowing" him in the Eucharist, that would not be to affirm the Real Presence, would it?