Do the Articles teach a real presence in bread, and do only the worthy eat it with their mouths?

[rakovsky]

I see that our friend rakovsky "likes" your comments here. This information that you are offering is what he's determined he's going to take from the conversation and consider to be the official or standard Anglican view of the Eucharist.

I think he was just talking about non-Anglo-Catholic churches in the US South, where he finds that in the sermons typically teach that it is a remembrance or Receptionism, without teaching that the presence is in the bread. SInce sermons don't always reflect the full teaching, I think to do a better job proving his contention he could make a survey like the kind that I have.

 

[rakovsky]

The 1979 BCP of the Episcopal Church USA is not a book of teaching for all Anglicanism, but for one of Anglicanism's largest churches. On the Eucharist it says:

• The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.
  
• The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.

Two kinds of questions arise:

1) Would everyone agree with this proposition that the spiritual grace is defined as Christ's body and blood, as distinct from His spirit, from the atonement, or from any other kind of grace?

2) I think Lutherans/Catholics/Orthodox would agree that Christ's body in the Communion is received by faith, but not only by faith but also by the mouth. Thus the statement that the Body is received by faith is not necessarily wrong from a Lutheran/Orthodox/Catholic viewpoint.

Further, the 1979 BCP mentions the body as the grace given in the communion, but it never says whether the body has a status other than as the grace. If the Body had no other status in the communion than the grace, then how could it be objectively present in the bread that the unfaithful eat? This is important because when Jesus handed what he called His "body" to Judas, the unfaithful Judas received this which was named and handed to him, but Judas didn't receive grace.

So the second question I would raise about the 1979 BCP is:
Should this idea that the grace in the Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ received by faith best be understood as an attempt to teach the Receptionist idea whereby "reception" of the body and blood is limited only to the faithful?

 

[Paidiske]

In some ways the contemporary expression of Anglicanism will be better understood in the The Five Marks of Mission...

I liked your post, on the whole, but this bit stood out to me because of recent experience.

If you had said this a year ago, I'd have agreed with you completely. But last year, and then again this year, I've led a small group study on the Marks of Mission (in two different parishes), and I've actually been shocked at how differently received those studies were. In the first parish people agreed that all of these things were "part of their DNA" and engaged enthusiastically with the question of how to live them out in their own context.

In the second parish, people couldn't get their heads around mission being more than the "tell" bit. After the studies, they even passed a motion at parish council (while I wasn't there) saying clergy should not discuss politics (because they took such issue with the "transform" bit). I had to, at the next meeting, tell them that actually, parish council can't tell clergy what we talk about, or not!

So I am starting to suspect that it depends a bit which "strand" of Anglicanism you're in, and how your particular parish constructs its sense of identity.

 

[Philip_B]

In the second parish, people couldn't get their heads around mission being more than the "tell" bit. After the studies, they even passed a motion at parish council (while I wasn't there) saying clergy should not discuss politics (because they took such issue with the "transform" bit). I had to, at the next meeting, tell them that actually, parish council can't tell clergy what we talk about, or not!

You should make them sing 'and did those feet' and laugh as they sing about 'dark satanic mills' ignoring the reality that Blake wrote before the industrial revolution.

TELL Proclamation may be in words – effective communication of the Gospel – but also in actions, by living the Good News we preach.

You may have noticed they way that the tell part was explained as going beyond words. I have a friend whose dictionary of ecclesiastical terms has this entry

Anglican Evangelism Doing something kind for someone and hoping they can guess why.​

I hope you have now managed at least one smile for the day. I don't think it is so much the strand of Anglicanism but rather the nature of various groups.

In designing websites for Parishes one of the questions that arises is shall we put the pew-sheet on the Parish Website. The advantages are obvious, in that it provides up to date information, enables those away for sickness and travel to keep abreast of what is happening in the faith community, is a point of connection of shut ins and the lonely, enables potential visitors/new members to get a feel for the parish. And of course it is a two minute job. The objection I have found is 'it is PRIVATE!'. My normal response is to say, 'well no it's not, it is a published document distributed at public worship'. Having worshipped with most parishes I have done websites for, I would say some of them have moved the dismissal of the catechumens to before the commencement of the liturgy.

TRANSFORM Jesus and the Old Testament prophets before him challenged oppressive structures in God’s name. Christians should not only press for change, but also demonstrate justice within Church structures.

The Gospel is political!? The challenge for us is to ensure that faith informs our politics, and not our politics informs our faith. That I think is part of what I smell in the decision of the Synod of Frankfurt in 794, where the question of showing how bad the Byzantines were was high on the agenda and the Filioque was simply a tool for that purpose.

Anyway we better return to Rakovsky's thread and remember that Anglicans are as nuanced about the Real Presence as they are about Evangelism, and Social Change.

 

[Paidiske]

Anglican Evangelism Doing something kind for someone and hoping they can guess why.

Having worshipped with most parishes I have done websites for, I would say some of them have moved the dismissal of the catechumens to before the commencement of the liturgy.​

Two smiles before adequate caffeine! You're doing well. ​

 

[Mockingbird0]

How to avoid pitfall #3:
Stop analyzing the eucharistic elements apart from their liturgical context.

When people say that the Lord's presence is objective, they don't mean it in a sense of subject-verb-object...
They mean that His presence in the bread is objectively factual....

This is a distinction without a difference. The analysis is distorted because it ignores the liturgical context. In another post you try to separate our Lord's body and blood from his Spirit and from his atonement. You claim that you are merely distinguishing them, but in fact you are trying to separate them. This is silly. God's grace is his presence, and all the earth is full of his presence [Isaiah 6.3]. Our Lord is no more "in" the Housel than he is "in" the air or the water or the rocks. But it is our being baptized with water and sharing the Housel with thanks to God the Father in Jesus's name that allows us to use the world as God intended for us to use it, as a place to enjoy his presence.

[H]ow should I address the fact that the numerous Anglican commentaries I found practically all state that the Articles of Religion take one position or the other on the question of the real presence of the Body being itself directly in bread?

I would say that the Articles are working as intended.

The articles rule out three extremes:

The statement in Article 25:

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's professon, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us...

Together with the statement in Article 28:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death...

and the rest;

these two statements rule out the extreme of non-sacramental interpretations.

The statement in Article 28:

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner

and the rest, rules out crude mechanical interpretations, such as (in modern terms) the housel's carbohydrate molecules being converted into protein molecules, or the wine's alcohol modules and pigments being converted into red and white blood cells.

The statement in Article 28:

Transubstantiation...is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

rules out Aquinas's version of transubstantiation, though perhaps not Duns Scotus's.

Anything that avoids these three extremes is allowed by the Articles, and this vagueness was intended by their drafters, in the sense that they did not want to go beyond what could be proved from Scripture, and Scripture leaves the matter (in the words of the English Nonjurors) "indefinite and undetermined".

 

[rakovsky]

How to avoid pitfall #3:
Stop analyzing the eucharistic elements apart from their liturgical context.

If you only go by the liturgy, isn't Transubstantiation allowed?

"When people say that the Lord's presence is objective, they don't mean it in a sense of subject-verb-object...
They mean that His presence in the bread is objectively factual...."

This is a distinction without a difference.

Once you throw out the idea that Christ's presence is an objective fact that exists regardless of one's belief, aren't you left with it being subjective like FireDragon complained about above? When something is totally subjective, as FireDragon said, it becomes up in the air, so to speak, a matter of opinion in the mind of the beholder. It becomes like other things that are purely subjective. An author in some cases may leave certain questions entirely up to his readers' guesses - one reader expects one ending to the story and a different reader expects another, and neither one is objectively factually right.

Isn't this why at the beginning CanadianAnglican wrote about the importance of an "objective" presence?

God's grace is his presence, and all the earth is full of his presence [Isaiah 6.3]. Our Lord is no more "in" the Housel than he is "in" the air or the water or the rocks.

It sounds like you are implying that Christ is no more literally "in" the bread and wine of the Sacrament than he is in normal water or rocks or air.

Doesn't this go against the belief that Christ's body itself has some kind of special presence directly in the bread and wine?

To give an example of how advocates of a special objective presence in bread think of this, they would also say that God had a special presence in the Ark of the Covenant, in the prophets, in the pillar of fire, walking in Eden, in the cloud, on Mount Sinai, in Jesus' pre-resurrection body, and in Christians whom the New Testament says are filled with Christ's spirit. That is, supporters of this teaching would agree that God is everywhere, but that he has a special presence specifically in these locations in a way that He does not have elsewhere.

Anything that avoids these three extremes is allowed by the Articles, and this vagueness was intended by their drafters, in the sense that they did not want to go beyond what could be proved from Scripture, and Scripture leaves the matter (in the words of the English Nonjurors) "indefinite and undetermined".

Bearing in mind that the Articles are to be read in their literal meaning according to the Preface, do you see the Articles as allowing the Lutheran view which states that the body is eaten not only spiritually by faith but also carnally by mouth and that both the faithful and unfaithful eat Christ's body?

 

[Philip_B]

Speaking quietly as an Anglican, one of the things that will always make this discussion difficult is the application of Aristotelian logic.

I think it is unfair to impose this on the 39 Articles in the name of honoring the 1633 preface of Charles I. My understanding is the intent of his preface was to limit the stretching of the 39 Articles towards a position more in conformity with teachings of the Continental Reformation parties, most especially the Puritans.

I don't feel that harshly uncritical fundamentalist readings of scripture are helpful, and I am inclined (here) to take the same view of the 39 Articles.

 

[rakovsky]

I think it is unfair to impose this on the 39 Articles in the name of honoring the 1633 preface of Charles I. My understanding is the intent of his preface was to limit the stretching of the 39 Articles towards a position more in conformity with teachings of the Continental Reformation parties, most especially the Puritans.

If the Anglican theologian Boultbee is right however, how would it be a stretch to see Articles 28-29 in conformity with the Continental Reformed and Puritans on this issue. Note the similarity to the Anglican Articles in the Reformed confession that Boultbee points to:

The reception of this doctrine in the English Church was due in the first place to Ridley, who satisfied himself by independent historical and scriptural enquiry as to its antiquity and truth By his influence Cranmer was led to study, and ultimately to adopt, the same opinion.
...
With these views the confessions of the principal Reformed Churches the Swiss, Dutch, Scotch Presbyterian, and the Church of England will be found to be in substantial accordance. For example, the Confession of Faith of the Established Church of Scotland thus sets forth the doctrine of the presence :

• Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all benefits of his death

In case you find the Preface's instructions about a literal reading to be too fundamentalist, then I suppose you would look to context and intent instead of a literal reading. But in that case, what do we do with the context that Boultbee has shown whereby the English Church tended to be in the Reformed camp on this issue? I remember reading about some of the authoring bishops' positions as against an objective presence. What do we do when Context brings us to look at the dissents of Bp. Guest and Bp. Cheyney, the commentaries of contemporary Anglicans who found the Articles to be in line with the Reformed on this question, the 1662 BCP that taught that Christ's natural body could not bilocate, etc., the context of Lutheranism using opposite wording from Articles 28-29 about the means of receiving and who receives, etc.?

 

[Philip_B]

I confess to being not overly familiar with the writings of Boultbee, and his works do not grace my shelves, however with a little bit of Mr Google, I have had a brief look. Looking at his contorted argument for double procession I am a bit surprised that you are using him as an authority.

I don't claim to be a definitive authority on all things Anglican, however I do know that you will not understand us by reading the 39 Articles. My point about Aristotelian logic is that the way I understand that many Anglicans, who I love and respect, is not in the sense of either/or nor black/white nor yes/no.

The days when the 39 Articles came to be were very fluid days in terms of Anglican Ecclesial Polity, and in the wake of the reign of Mary, there was a determination to distance the Church from the Bishop of Rome, yet it seems it was not the mind of the Elizabethan settlement to go all the way with a continental style reformation, and I believe the intent was to create a middle ground with boundaries, yet room for diversity. The one thing Anglicans are not, is one in opinion. We are however one body the Christ - though at times we seem to have trouble expressing that.

I suspect for most Anglicans this is an old debate. Christ invites and we come in faith at his invitation, and we celebrate and partake in all he has to offer - and our issue is not that of how he comes to us - his body and his blood. The ineffability of the sacrament is indeed a key component.

I know I personally don't have a huge problem with bi-location, because my Orthodox friends have taught me that this table is set in heaven and on earth, in the doorway to heaven.

Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat!

 

[Albion]

If you only go by the liturgy, isn't Transubstantiation allowed?

Does this sound like Transubstantiation to you?

"...these gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution..."

 

[Philip_B]

DEARLY beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come to the holy Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, must consider how Saint Paul exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament; (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us; ) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily. For then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour; we eat and drink our own damnation, not considering the Lord's Body; we kindle God's wrath against us; we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases, and sundry kinds of death. Judge therefore yourselves, brethren, that ye be not judged of the Lord; repent you truly for your sins past; have a lively and stedfast faith in Christ our Saviour; amend your lives, and be in perfect charity with all men; so shall ye be meet partakers of those holy mysteries. And above all things ye must give most humble and hearty thanks to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our Saviour Christ, both God and man; who did humble himself, even to the death upon the Cross, for us miserable sinners, who lay in darkness and the shadow of death; that he might make us the children of God, and exalt us to everlasting life. And to the end that we should alway remember the exceeding great love of our Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his precious blood-shedding he hath obtained to us; he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and for a continual remembrance of his death, to our great and endless comfort. To him therefore, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, let us give (as we are most bounden) continual thanks; submitting ourselves wholly to his holy will and pleasure, and studying to serve him in true holiness and righteousness all the days of our life. Amen.​

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.​

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.

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.
​

Here are words from the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer 1661 (1662). For those who wish to categorise the Anglican Church by which box to put their sacramental theology in (Transubstantiation or Memory Meal), the news is that you will need another box labelled Anglican. Like the Orthodox, we don't wear other peoples labels well. And like the Orthodox, we are not one in opinion, and though we struggle with it, we do endeavour to be one body in Christ.

THE peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord: And the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you and remain with you always. Amen.​

 

[Albion]

Here are words from the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer 1661 (1662). For those who wish to categorise the Anglican Church by which box to put their sacramental theology in (Transubstantiation or Memory Meal), the news is that you will need another box labelled Anglican.

 

[rakovsky]

Does this sound like Transubstantiation to you?

"...these gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution..."

Hello, Albion. As I understand it, Catholics accept that the Bible says that Jesus took bread and broke it and distributed it, saying "This is my body". They however take the position that after the Words of Institution, the substance became changed only into body. To assert that "the gifts" are of bread and wine and that the faithful receive them - "the gifts", does not specify their state after the consecration.

How else to understand St. Cyril of Alexandria's words:

• Since Christ Himself said in reference to the bread: "This is My Body," who will dare remain hesitant? And since with equal clarity He asserted: "This is My Blood," who will dare entertain any doubt and say that this is not His Blood?... You have been taught these truths. Imbued with the certainty of faith, you know that what seems to be bread is not bread but the Body of Christ, although it seems to be bread when tasted. You also know that what seems to be wine is not wine but the Blood of Christ although it does taste like wine.
• 
  
• - From a catechetical instruction given by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem for his successor John in the 4th century

On one hand he calls the Eucharist "bread", but then he specifies that it is "not bread".

He does something similar again, using "bread" as a term for Jesus' body.
"If the poison of pride is swelling up in you, turn to the Eucharist; and that Bread, Which is your God humbling and disguising Himself, will teach you humility. If the fever of selfish greed rages in you, feed on this Bread;"
http://www.acfp2000.com/Saints/St_Cyril_Alexandria/St_Cyril_Alexandria.html

As I understand it, St. Cyril is respected in Anglicanism and has a place in the Breviary.

 

[rakovsky]

Dear Philip,

I confess to being not overly familiar with the writings of Boultbee, and his works do not grace my shelves, however with a little bit of Mr Google, I have had a brief look. Looking at his contorted argument for double procession I am a bit surprised that you are using him as an authority.

I am not using him as an authority to show what views I think are correct about Christianity, but rather citing him as an authority on Anglicanism, whether I agree with his own theology or not.

The days when the 39 Articles came to be were very fluid days in terms of Anglican Ecclesial Polity, and in the wake of the reign of Mary, there was a determination to distance the Church from the Bishop of Rome, yet it seems it was not the mind of the Elizabethan settlement to go all the way with a continental style reformation, and I believe the intent was to create a middle ground with boundaries, yet room for diversity.

If their view was simply to create a middle ground with room for diversity while leaving the theology of Rome (eg. Transubstantiation), why did they enact Art. 29 over the pro-Lutheran Bp. Cheyney's and Bp. Guest's objections and then expel Cheyney for failing to accept it?

I know I personally don't have a huge problem with bi-location, because my Orthodox friends have taught me that this table is set in heaven and on earth, in the doorway to heaven.

I know. For example, in the opening of Revelation, even though Jesus has been in heaven since the Ascension, he comes to earth and touches the Apostle John with his hand.

 

[Philip_B]

expel Cheyney for failing to accept it

Cheyney continued to act as bishop of Gloucester, becoming very popular by his liberality; but ran into debt.' About October 1576 process issued out of the exchequer to seize his lands and goods for 500 pounds due to the queen for arrears of tenths. The bishop, however, begged for time, and the request seems to have been granted. Cheyney died on 29 April 1579 at the age of sixty-five, and was buried in his cathedral of Gloucester.​

There is way to much politics in the Church, as well you know. I am not sure of the intent of the authors, save perhaps to underline that partaking of the Blessed Sacrament does not make you holy. I think it is biblical to conclude that sharing in the bread of the altar without discerning the body is to bring condemnation on oneself.

kyrie eleison

 

[Mockingbird0]

On Article 29:

Master Doctor Whitgift (later Archbishop of Canterbury) noted that "we know that wicked men may receive these external signs [in baptism and the Eucharist] and yet remain the members of Satan."

For those of the Articles' framers who believed in Augustinian predestination in some form, Article 29 was a simple statement of fact. Those who belonged to Augustine's "lump of damnation" never were, never are, and never will be members of Christ's body.

For those that did not believe in Augustinian predestination, I suppose that Article 29 would have meant that all who are nourished by Christ still have a choice of what use they will make of that nourishment, and are free to use it in ways that separate them from Christ. This is a subtler interpretation than the first, though, and I have no direct evidence of it.

 

[rakovsky]

On Article 29:

Master Doctor Whitgift (later Archbishop of Canterbury) noted that "we know that wicked men may receive these external signs [in baptism and the Eucharist] and yet remain the members of Satan."

For those of the Articles' framers who believed in Augustinian predestination in some form, Article 29 was a simple statement of fact. Those who belonged to Augustine's "lump of damnation" never were, never are, and never will be members of Christ's body.

For those that did not believe in Augustinian predestination, I suppose that Article 29 would have meant that all who are nourished by Christ still have a choice of what use they will make of that nourishment, and are free to use it in ways that separate them from Christ. This is a subtler interpretation than the first, though, and I have no direct evidence of it.

So which answer would that point to in the poll for this thread?

 

[Mockingbird0]

So which answer would that point to in the poll for this thread?

I seldom do polls.

Bishop Guest, whom you have mentioned more than once, wrote concerning Article 29:

If this article be confirmed and authorized by ye Quenes grace it will cause muche busyness, bycause it is quyte contrary to ye Scripture & to ye doctrine of ye fathers, for it is certain that Judas as evill as he was did receive Christis body, bycause Christ saied unto him take, eat, this is my bodye.

Yet the article was approved by "ye Quenes grace" and Bishop Guest managed somehow to quiet his conscience. If he could do it, then anyone nowadays is entitled to do the same. Perhaps he glossed it with the word "profitably" that he proposed adding to Article 28.

 

[rakovsky]

I seldom do polls.

Bishop Guest, whom you have mentioned more than once, wrote concerning Article 29:



Yet the article was approved by "ye Quenes grace" and Bishop Guest managed somehow to quiet his conscience. If he could do it, then anyone nowadays is entitled to do the same. Perhaps he glossed it with the word "profitably" that he proposed adding to Article 28.

If someone like Cardinal Newman was there, who taught that Art 28 was not against RC Transubstantiation, and made the same excuses, would anyone be entitled to teach that Art 28 did not reject Transubstantiation?