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

[Philip_B]

People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe; I did not believe the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty in believing it, as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation.

Cardinal John Henry Newman - Apologia Pro Vita Sua, 1864​

 

[rakovsky]

People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe; I did not believe the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty in believing it, as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation.

Cardinal John Henry Newman - Apologia Pro Vita Sua, 1864​

I read in a BBC article that Newman claimed that Article 28 allowed Transubstantiation. It was not just a matter of him being a Catholic and reading the Pope's documents.
People have a way to read into the Articles what they want to see, but does that mean that they are really correct in their judgments?

Newman is not the only Anglican I know who claim Transubstantiation is allowed in Art 28. I have read that claim in an AngloCatholic article too.

In my view, just because a scholar sincerely claims that an Article allows for their view doesn't mean that it actually does.

 

[Philip_B]

People have a way to read into the Articles what they want to see,

That seems harsh to me.

Transubstantiation is allowed in Art 28

Clearly a plain reading of it suggests that it does not. I know that reading some recent theologians in the other Catholic Tradition, I found that much of what they said on the subject seemed to accord with and Anglican understanding of the Real Presence, and not so closely with the promulgation of the Council of Trent. I suspect you need to be clear that the 39 Articles are specifically referring to the doctrine as promulgated by the council of Trent. I think JHN was referring to that specifically in the passage in the Apologia I quoted above.

In some sense the "T" word is a naughty word for Anglicans, so even though they would find the considerations of a modern Catholic Writer entirely consistent with the 39 articles, they would not use the "T" word even though the authors may have, for awareness that their position may be misunderstood or misconstrued.

Christianity is not a message which has to be believed, but an experience of faith that becomes a message.
Edward Schillebeeckx​

 

[rakovsky]

That seems harsh to me.

I wish it wasn't so, but don't know how else to take the fact that Anglicans have opposite readings of the Articles, readings that just happen to match their own beliefs on the issues in question.

Clearly a plain reading of it suggests that it does not. I know that reading some recent theologians in the other Catholic Tradition, I found that much of what they said on the subject seemed to accord with and Anglican understanding of the Real Presence, and not so closely with the promulgation of the Council of Trent. I suspect you need to be clear that the 39 Articles are specifically referring to the doctrine as promulgated by the council of Trent. I think JHN was referring to that specifically in the passage in the Apologia I quoted above.

In some sense the "T" word is a naughty word for Anglicans, so even though they would find the considerations of a modern Catholic Writer entirely consistent with the 39 articles, they would not use the "T" word even though the authors may have, for awareness that their position may be misunderstood or misconstrued.

Christianity is not a message which has to be believed, but an experience of faith that becomes a message.
Edward Schillebeeckx​

Since RCs consider Trent to be ecumenical, I think that being Roman Catholic means that by default they would be in approval of it, at least no less than conservative Anglicans are in approval of the Articles.

I learned recently that Cranmer was forced by penalty of death by Q. Mary to accept some RC teachings which he did, until later he found out that should would still not pardon him.
In the case of Guest and Cheyney they were not threatened by death, only deposition if they failed to ratify the Articles (Cheyney was temporarily suspended until he signed). With such a heavy threat over them ecclesiastically, it is hard to say how voluntary they were. If they did so under this kind of pressure - sign or lose your seat - can we really say that their affirmation was an exemplary proof that they (as well as Cranmer in his own challenge) agreed in good conscience and thus that those who support them in later generations should do so if we have no pressure of any kind on us.

That is, if Guest sincerely wrote that Art. 29 was wrong and then had some factor (eg. institutionally) that led him to affirm what he opposed, a factor that we don't have in our own lives, then to correctly follow his sincere views, should we support such a passage or not? Do you see the challenge?

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

So the sacrament's efficacy is conditional on what the recipient does, and not in passively trusting in God's promises?

Most mainline Lutherans do not interpret Paul's injunction in that manner, because it overturns the understanding that the sacrament was given for the remission of sins (it is also questionable exegesis, even if it is deeply traditional). That's one reason that many ELCA Lutherans are moving towards a more open practice of communion: Jesus freely offers himself to sinners in the sacrament, unconditionally.

If it were dependent on our worthiness, it could not be a means of grace. They also acknowledge the sacrament is tied up with our sanctification, which contradicts what you just said.

This is why I appreciate the Lutheran doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper. It makes reception a passive affair without any reason to doubt our reception.

 

[Mockingbird0]

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?

The question is what the framers of the Articles intended. The example of Bishop Guest shows that they did not all intend the same thing.

 

[FireDragon76]

This discussion has really helped me appreciate the Anglican teachings on the Eucharist. I'm now convinced there is less real difference between the Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, and even some Reformed on this point. I would not say the plain language of the articles suggests that Christ's body is merely in heaven. There is a real spiritual presence, which I take to mean it is invisible and mediated by the bread and wine, just as the presence or reality of a saint is mediated by the wood and paint in an icon.

The Catholics potentially seem to be the outlier. Many modern Roman Catholic theologians no longer seem to believe in transubstantiation (instead pretty much affirming transignification), but it still seems widely taught in their churches. I agree that transubstantiation overthrows the nature of a sacrament. It really is as an old Byzantine Catholic anchorite told me years ago, Latin religion was infused with sacerdotalism.

I've been watching a series by Diarmaid MacCulloch on the history of Christiantiy. In one episode he goes to Zurich and talks to the Reformed pastor at one of the original Reformed churches. MacCulloch asked the pastor about Zwingli and the sacrament, and she said she thinks Zwingli got the sacrament wrong because he was too much of a rationalist, that she would agree more with Luther. That really surprised me to hear that.

 

[rakovsky]

The question is what the framers of the Articles intended. The example of Bishop Guest shows that they did not all intend the same thing.

If we go by intent, then Bp. Guest and Bp. Cheyney are saying that Article 29 rules out belief in an objective presence in the Lutheran sense and so he did not want to sign it. And this indeed is the only practical way to understand Art 29, because everyone agrees that the unfaithful do not commune with Jesus, so when Art 29 denies they eat his body, the only reason for such a controversial passage to be added would be to rule out the Lutheran/objectivist teaching that the bread is in the body. It was only do to the requirements of the convocation that Bp. Guest and Cheyney agreed to Article 29 not because they changed what they believed it should say instead.

Further, intent is not the only question. Someone can intend something one way as an author, and write something that is in fact the opposite. I can tell you to Stop your car, but what I meant to say was to keep driving, and had a misunderstanding. That's a simple example but there are other times when people write things in a way that misunderstands reality. The Articles' preface says that they must be understood in their literal sense. Looking at everything literally does not necessarily go by intent but by the "literal" meaning.

 

[Philip_B]

The Articles' preface says that they must be understood in their literal sense.

There is no preface to the articles in A Prayer book for Australia. I think the preface in the Charles I preface, which I suspect was designed to limit how far south some of the Puritans could stretch the meaning. I think that is one of the truths of Anglicanism, is that since 1562 man have endeavoured how far they can stretch them to see how far they could get them in their direction, and it is clear that the Oxford Fathers pretty much followed suite in that. As such the preface is but a preface, somewhat like the short title to a piece of legislation, classically not part of the legislation itself.

I believe any realistic attempt to understand the articles must be read in context, and part of that context is the social context in which they were written. As an Anglican I feel that the 39 Articles are a fabulous springboard to help us understand much, and they have been a significant part of who we have become. They are however not a prison for Anglican thought. They were borne in an era when the matter of religion was a national issue, and changing the wearer of the crown could just an easily change the religion of the nation. Many people in that era had to adapt or say goodbye to the poor hold they had on life, and indeed Cranmer was one whose hand whilst in the articles paid dearly with his life. Transposing the articles to a post modern world where nations are democratic, where religious pluralism is a dogma of the state, where the rights of the individual now mean something, and the common person may be heard, means that you have to understand that we are looking for principles, and context, otherwise it makes no sense.

 

[Paidiske]

There is no preface to the articles in A Prayer book for Australia.

This is true, but there is a statement about them in the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, and clergy are still required to state on oath that they assent to the articles as acknowledged in the constitution before receiving a licence.

The relevant article in the constitution says:

"This Church, being derived from the Church of England, retains and approves the doctrine and principles of the Church of England embodied in the Book of Common Prayer together with the Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and in the Articles of Religion sometimes called the Thirty-nine Articles but has plenary authority at its own discretion to make statements as to the faith ritual ceremonial or discipline of this Church and to order its forms of worship and rules of discipline and to alter or revise such statements, forms and rules, provided that all such statements, forms, rules or alteration or revision thereof are consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained herein and are made as prescribed by this Constitution. Provided, and it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard."

 

[Philip_B]

This is true, but there is a statement about them in the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, and clergy are still required to state on oath that they assent to the articles as acknowledged in the constitution before receiving a licence.

The relevant article in the constitution says:

"This Church, being derived from the Church of England, retains and approves the doctrine and principles of the Church of England embodied in the Book of Common Prayer together with the Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and in the Articles of Religion sometimes called the Thirty-nine Articles but has plenary authority at its own discretion to make statements as to the faith ritual ceremonial or discipline of this Church and to order its forms of worship and rules of discipline and to alter or revise such statements, forms and rules, provided that all such statements, forms, rules or alteration or revision thereof are consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained herein and are made as prescribed by this Constitution. Provided, and it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard."

Thankyou for you answer to the question what do you get when you cross and Anglican and a lawyer?

 

[Paidiske]

Or a scientist, in this case. Somewhere along the line, I had it drummed into me that data are important.

 

[Mockingbird0]

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?

Was someone "like Newman" there?

 

[rakovsky]

Was someone "like Newman" there?

Hi Mockingbird.
Your statement about Guest was: "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."

I pointed to Cardinal Newman's claim that Art 28 does not ban Transubstantiation. Does the fact that someone like Cardinal Newman or Bp. Guest is able to quiet their conscience and accept a formula that under normal circumstances they would reject mean that the formula is actually in agreement with their real beliefs?

For one, I am skeptical that Articles 28-29 are actually agreeing with Cardinal Newman's and Bp. Guest's beliefs, and it seems rather they were under pressure to accept these formulas because the formulas were essential to their denominations and they would rather assent than be suspended like Cheyney. Do such circumstances of religious conformity and the threat of penalties, as well as their submission to those powers mean that in normal circumstances anyone is legitimately entitled to accept those teachings when the pressure is absent?

For example, if a Protestant potential martyr accepted major Catholic teachings (like purgatory), claiming it was in agreement with their own Protestant beliefs, would that mean anyone is "entitled" to do that?
Eastern Catholics were pressured to accept Rome in 1000-1600 AD. They were formerly Orthodox and claim that their beliefs are Eastern Orthodox and agree with Rome. But does the fact that their ancestors made this theological claim mean that anyone is "entitled" to make it too?

I guess that in modern society people are "entitled" to think up whatever justifications they want like when Newman said Art 28 didn't ban RC Transubstantiation.

 

[Mockingbird0]

Freedom of thought is a fundamental human right. So from that point of view, folk are indeed entitled to think whatever they like.

As a historical matter I suspect that most of those who supported the addition of article 29 rejected the Lutheran doctrine and supported something like Calvinist doctrine. But in a legal document like the Articles, if there is a conflict between what the legislator meant and what the statute says, the statute governs.

 

[rakovsky]

As a historical matter I suspect that most of those who supported the addition of article 29 rejected the Lutheran doctrine and supported something like Calvinist doctrine. But in a legal document like the Articles, if there is a conflict between what the legislator meant and what the statute says, the statute governs.

I don't know why you put "but" when you write: "most who supported Art 29 rejected the Lutheran doctrine... "But"... the statute governs. The Lutheran book of Concord says:

[Quoting Luther:]I rate as one concoction, namely, as Sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also are, all who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter and all [other] saints; he who will not believe this (I say) should let me alone, and hope for no fellowship with me
...
For that not only the godly, pious, and believing Christians, but also unworthy, godless hypocrites, as Judas and his ilk, who have no spiritual communion with Christ, and go to the Table of the Lord without true repentance and conversion to God, also receive orally in the Sacrament the true body and [true] blood of Christ, and by their unworthy eating and drinking grievously sin against the body and blood of Christ, St. Paul teaches expressly. For he says, 1 Cor. 11:27: Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, sins not merely against the bread and wine, not merely against the signs or symbols and emblems of the body and blood, but shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which, as there [in the Holy Supper] present, he dishonors, abuses, and disgraces, as the Jews, who in very deed violated the body of Christ and killed Him; just as the ancient Christian Fathers and church-teachers unanimously have understood and explained this passage.

http://bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php

In contrast to Luther's declaration, Article 29 is titled "XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper", and the Preface to the Articles demands that we take the Articles in their "literal" sense. This is why even some Anglicans who do accept the objective presence have theorized that Jesus' presence secretly leaves the bread of the wicked, as they can not accept that the Wicked in particular eat Bread with the Body with their mouths.

Thus, Lutheran teaching that the Wicked perform "unworthy eating" of Christ's body is ruled out by the literal meaning of this Statute.

Thus it turns out that not only does the Statute's plain meaning exclude the word-for-word Lutheran teaching, but as you said, it was the intent of its authors to do so.

 

[Mockingbird0]

Preface to the Articles demands that we take the Articles in their "literal" sense.

What is this "preface" ? In the American Prayer Book, the Articles have always begun with Article 1. Here there is no "preface."

Perhaps you refer to the declaration of Charles I requiring the articles to be taken in their "literal and grammatical" sense. This declaration was sometimes prefixed to editions of the Articles. But note the implications: using the "literal and grammatical sense" requires us only to respect the meanings of words. It releases us of all need to respect the intentions of the authors. Newman was able to take the "literal and grammatical" sense a great way in Tract 90.

The word "eat" is used in the title, but the word "partake" is used in the text of the article itself. "Partake" here can mean "eat", but it need not. And different schools of thought place different weight on the distinction between the article's title and the article itself. So you will never get all Anglicans utterly without exception to agree that the Articles support one interpretation only.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Was the specific article on transubstantiation written prior to the dogmatic definition given in Trent? This is important because at one time in the Roman Catholic Church transubstantiation was taught in such a way - and backed up by a papal bull - that it was believed Jesus' flesh and blood are actually crushed in the eating of the sacrament. This is not how Catholics understand transubstantiation today. If the article dealing with transubstantiation was written (if not officially promulgated) prior to the definition of transubstantiation given in the Council of Trent this makes a difference in the range of concepts the Anglican article may be reacting to.

This might not make matters clearer for this discussion (or various similar discussions), but though Richard Cheyney did not accept the arguments he was advised according to this article that he could accept the Article on transubstantiation in such a way that it accorded with his Roman belief in the real presence.

 

[Mockingbird0]

If the article dealing with transubstantiation was written (if not officially promulgated) prior to the definition of transubstantiation given in the Council of Trent this makes a difference in the range of concepts the Anglican article may be reacting to.

So Newman tried to argue. Sheer sophistry. Any doctrine that holds that the housel, at an identifiable moment in time, stops being bread and starts being something that is not bread--any such doctrine "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."