A post or two below I had a crack at some words on 'Anglican validity' and a very interesting series of comments has ensued which has got me thinking about this word 'validity'. In connection with the eucharist of course, not my stamp collection. (Actually, the latter is non-existent).
I wonder if we use the same word in different ways and thus making some distinctions could be helpful.
Here are some ways I think may have been touched on in the comments below:
(1) Denominational validity: there are these rules pertaining to the ordering of eucharistic ministry. Sure they reflect great theological insights and powerful Scriptural injunctions and examples, but their sharp edges are provided by the denomination. Thus we Anglicans can entertain thoughts like 'a Methodist celebrating a Methodist eucharist in an Anglican church is offering a valid eucharist, but a Methodist (not having been ordained by a bishop) offering an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church is offering an invalid eucharist.' The measurement of 'validity' at this point is 'our rules'. And, I do not think we are saying such a eucharist is theologically invalid (or, if you like, invalid from God's perspective). I suppose 'invalid' here has a strong sense of 'illegal.' Yet the rules are not rules for rules sake: the rules of denominations re eucharist reflect particular theologies of church, ministry, liturgy as well as eucharist.
(2) Transformational validity: there is a view that something happens to the bread and the wine when the eucharist is held, according to order, presided over by a correctly ordered person (so Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and (perhaps depending who one is talking to) Presbyterians), and, depending precisely on the view held, those holding to the view accept a variety of denominational eucharists as valid, and a potential variety of correctly ordered persons presiding over the eucharist as being okay; and even where we do not think some things are correct we can respect the transformational intention of such churches. But the one thing many holding this view are united on is that a non-transformational intention (e.g. to steadfastly view the bread and the wine as nothing more or less than tokens or emblems) results in an invalid eucharist. Thus most Anglicans (so I understand) view Roman and Eastern Orthodox eucharists/masses/divine liturgy as valid eucharists (the exceptions could be certain evangelical Anglicans); and would see no need for a further ordination to take place of a Roman priest or E.Orthodox priest who (if we can imagine it) was willing to preside over an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church. I understand Romans to view E. Orthodox divine liturgies as valid eucharists, but hold Anglican eucharists to be invalid ... yet I think they respect our eucharists in a way in which they do not (say) a Baptist or Brethren eucharist. It is on this sense of 'validity' that an Anglican might say that a Brethren or Baptist eucharist is invalid.
(3) Scriptural validity: all Christians undertaking eucharistic ministry aim to be faithful to the words of Scripture, both the narratival material concerning the last supper of Jesus, and the instructions of Jesus, reinforced in Paul's teaching. What Christians believe happens, or does not happen in respect of transformation of the bread and wine, and whether or not certain words are said as received by the church through tradition (such as the words known as the epiclesis or calling down of the Spirit), where Christians are faithful to Scripture in their enactment of eucharist, in this perspective, a valid eucharist is performed. Thus, as an Anglican, if I am a participant in a Baptist eucharist or a Brethren eucharist, I think I have been present at a valid eucharist. (I might also find it unsatisfactory in a number of respects and choose not to make it the form of eucharist I regularly attend).
Thoughts?
35 comments:
Would you please tell me what (some) Anglicans suppose happens to the bread and wine, "when the eucharist is held, according to order, presided over by a correctly ordered person"? I've never before heard of Anglicans believing something like that.
Hi Janice,
I am happy to be corrected because (a) I am often told that I do not understand these things properly, (b) I find writing about the mystery of communion a real challenge ... so here goes!
As I understand it Anglicans, at least since the mid 19th century, have embraced a range of understandings, from that which is indistinguishable from Rome through to that drawing on Wittenburg or Geneva through to Zurich (i.e. ... Luther ... Calvin ... Zwingli). Somewhere, perhaps in the midst, is a position which I have often heard referred to in Anglican circles, known as 'the Real Presence'. This last I take to mean that when the bread and the wine are consecrated, Christ is present in the reality of the bread and the wine with no claim being made as to how Christ is present.
Any which way, my understanding - which may be corrected :) - is that, save for the Zwinglian position, the bread and the wine are changed to Christ's body and blood, hence the reverent consuming of leftover 'body' and 'bread', or the reserving of it for distribution to the sick.
Is this explanation helpful?
Thanks Peter.
I think what you're saying is that it's a sort of transubstantiation lite.
Never mind that, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them," some of us want something extra and more certain. So a bloke up the front who's passed the right exams and been given the nod by the right person in authority then recites the right words and, hey presto, we have conjured the actual "Real Presence" into the actual bread and wine!
And then what? If Jesus' "Real Presence" is in the bread and wine, what is that supposed to do to those who eat and drink?
I know about the consuming of leftovers but understood this to be done to prevent certain deluded people from being tempted to use them in trying to cast their own spells.
Hi Janice,
We are not talking about 'transubstantiation lite' nor are we talking about 'a bloke up the front who's passed the right exams and been given the nod by the right person in authority then recites the right words and, hey presto, we have conjured the actual "Real Presence" into the actual bread and wine!'.
What we are talking about is taking very seriously the eucharistic teaching of the Bible, especially in accounts of the Last Supper, John 6, 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, and asking how as a church we most faithfully follow that teaching when the church is gathered together in Christ's name.
It is Christ himself who both says that where two or three gather in his name there he is in our midst AND 'This is my body' AND 'unless you eat my flesh etc.' Thus the church thinks Christ both present in eucharistic and in non-eucharistic gatherings, but thinks that some special nurture of the believer occurs with consumption of Christ's body and blood (pace John 6).
Eucharistic occasions in Anglican understanding are not presided over by exam-passing, received-the-nod blokes, but by people discerned in prayer by the church to be called of God to express leadership of the church and are especially ordered (i.e. ordained) for this ministry. The commitment of the ordained is to undertake the ministry of Christ in Christ's name through Christ's Spirit in a Christ-like manner. The commitment of the church is to receive that ministry as the ministry of Christ. When, together, we do this as Christ's people we believe the Real Presence of Christ is with us, consistent with all Christ has said about being present among his people.
First things first Peter, from the earlier thread: “Spud” = “po-ta-toes” as quoted by Sam of LOTR (screen version) over an open fire ...
You may have noticed too that I earlier wrote: “This raises the bar from questions re the “valid” or “licit” to the ontological.” I was attempting a number of distinctions with this sentence. And since you have now begun to tease some of them out, perhaps I should do the same.
The RCC carefully makes the distinction between “licit” and “legal”, the latter being according to current Canon Law. So that, for example, those disgruntled, post Vatican 2 types, like Abp Lefebvre (RIP), were perfectly licit in their affairs (orders, sacraments, etc.) - but not legal.
Where theology is directly brought in, like in your second category, “transformational”, then a richer understanding, I sense, of “validity” is in play. This would probably be (you do not quite spell it out - on this first post) the rationale behind your saying “ I understand Romans to view E. Orthodox divine liturgies as valid eucharists, but hold Anglican eucharists to be invalid ... yet I think they respect our eucharists in a way in which they do not (say) a Baptist or Brethren eucharist.”
Yes; that’s how I too would see it: our orders are invalid (due to a very dense, thick - over-blown? - ecclesiology; see below) in the eyes of Rome, and so therefore are our Eucharists - BUT given a broad Anglican theology of both episcopacy and orders, and the Holy Communion, we are indeed ‘different’ to either Baptists or Brethren Churches and their celebrations of the Eucharist. There is still, after all these centuries, a world of difference between Calvin and Zwingli at this point. Even the former allowed for some kind of “real presence”; he was just not prepared to say HOW! Which makes, BTW, the matter of Lay Presidency (as per Sydney) NOT incidental! Where indeed are the boundaries of the Anglican “via media”?!
So the crunch is as ever ecclesiology, when we are talking about the “valid”, the “licit” and the “legal”. If matters are defined as being de fide, of being of the esse of the Church, and not merely of the Church’s bene esse, then HUGE consequences arise. And we are indeed back to Hooker and Carl’s points (from earlier): the CoE did not see anything “repugnant” in the ancient threefold orders of ministry, contra the Puritans and the Presbyterians. Which the allowed the celebrated compromise of the words of distribution at Communion, both Elizabethan and the Restoration - which probably begins to address Janice’s question (now further elaborated ...).
Further to later posts:
If both of you, Peter and Janice, wish to pursue Brevard Childs’ Memory and Tradition in Israel (SCM, 1962), he carefully unpacks the words “memorial” and “remember”, and then offers a view on what it means - in this light - “to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11), let alone how the ‘koinonia’ (1 Cor 10) of the Holy Spirit enables us to become “incorporated” afresh into His death and resurrection - linking up with John 6's “abiding”. But enough ...
Hi Bryden,
Thanks for very helpful and informative response, save on the 'spud' ... I was wondering if it might have meant hot chips with tomato sauce ... or not!
The point re licit and legal is interestingly finely tuned :)
As Sam wld say: chips/fries/wedges/mashed/boiled/bubble-&-squeek - "po-ta-toes" all! Of course, if anyone wants to pervert the taste with TS/BBQ/Cajun as you suggest, then they will have to apply to Mordor and bear the consequences! Or shld that be "bare" the consequences?
More seriously: any good 'sponge' aids the consumption of a joyous drink! When and where, to discuss the "real presence"?! Any other takers from this neck of the woods?
As I understand the 39 Articles, Cranmer taught that after the words of 'consecration', the bread and wine assumed the dignity of representing the body and blood of Christ, and that Christ is received by faith 'after a heavenly [spiritual?] manner'. Anglican doctrine is receptionism. There is no objective change in the 'substantia' of the bread and wine, as taught by Radbertus Paschasius and the fourth Lateran council, following Aristotelianism.
After the Elizabethan settlement, continental reformers like Bucer who had not been episcopally ordained were accepted into the Chruch of England. Attitudes hardened in the 1580s and 90s, especially when Bancroft began his anti-Puritan crusade.
Lightfoot rejected the apostolic origin of the threefold ministry.
Al M.
In Canada an Anglican minister recently administered communion to a dog.
In the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches the result of such an action would be swift and final - defrocking for sure.
And under such circumstances a communicant in those churches can be confident of the Sacredness of that which they receive.
But can they in the Anglican Church where such a thing is passed off as an anomaly and how can a person who doesn't comprehend the sacredness of the Body and Blood of Christ be ordained in the first instance?
And this speaks to why perhaps the Orthodox, Copts and Catholics recognize each others sacraments but not those of the Anglicans
My comments apply as much to Al M as Andy S.
Reading Book 4 and the relevant chapters of The Institutes, I strongly suspect Calvin would be similarly horrified by this Canadian incident, and given his reputation for Genevan Church Government, I suspect too discipline would be swift as well! For while he too does not believe in any change in the bread and wines' substantia, the Blessing does effect a change - from mere ordinary bread to sacred signs and seals, while being still earthly things, unto the believers' eternal salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit and through their faith.
For he is fighting on three fronts at once: contra Zwingli, Rome, and even subsequent Lutherans, each of whose stances are different (tho' the latter two less dramatically of course than the first's).
Hi Peter,
I get the impression that I have offended you. If so, I apologise, because that wasn't my intention.
I've learned not to regard my own incredulity as a sound basis for deciding on the truth or otherwise of a proposition but on this matter I can't get past the implication that just because certain steps are followed then God is somehow, almost mechanistically, obliged to produce a specified (though poorly defined) outcome. It is as though we (or, rather, properly ordained people who utter the right invocations) are sovereign, not God. That seems completely wrong to me.
And if it is true that, "some special nurture of the believer occurs with consumption of Christ's body and blood," can we assume that something special, not necessarily nurturing, occurs to non-believers who partake just because they are consuming, "Christ's body and blood"?
Eucharistic occasions in Anglican understanding are not presided over by exam-passing, received-the-nod blokes, but by people discerned in prayer by the church to be called of God to express leadership of the church and are especially ordered (i.e. ordained) for this ministry. The commitment of the ordained is to undertake the ministry of Christ in Christ's name through Christ's Spirit in a Christ-like manner.
So one would hope. But the process doesn't always achieve the hoped for result.
I think Bryden has given a fair account of Calvin's doctrine, which I think Cranmer held: the bread and wine become effectual signs of the body and blood which are received *by faith 'after an heavenly manner'.
They do not "become" [transubstantiate into] the body and blood of Christ any more than baptismal water "becomes" the Holy Spirit.
Calvin's discipline would have been no fiercer than any 16th century Catholic prelate's.
Al M.
“Anglican doctrine is receptionism. There is no objective change in the 'substantia' of the bread and wine, as taught by Radbertus Paschasius and the fourth Lateran council, following Aristotelianism.”--Al M.
I think you are being a tad dogmatic about this, Al. Perhaps what you say was true for many Anglicans 450 years ago, but even then receptionism was far from a universal view. Certainly in the American Episcopal Church over the centuries, a high doctrine of the Holy Eucharist has been affirmed by many. Today, the view of an “objective” Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is undoubtedly held by most American Episcopalians.
Ratramnus, (Radbertus’ major opponent during his lifetime), advocated a conception of the Real Presence that I think is far “more Anglican” than mere receptionism. As I understand his writings, Ratramnus believed that Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist is spiritual, rather than carnal (Radbertus’ position). He also stressed that faith is key to unlocking the benefits of Christ’s Body and Blood (something which, as far as I know, even Radbertus himself did not deny). Yet while Christ’s Presence in the Blessed Sacrament is spiritual, nonetheless, it is Real and objective for Ratramnus, and not simply a matter of subjective belief. And as far as I know, Ratramnus never opposed the custom of the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament--which was becoming increasingly popular in monasteries and convents during his lifetime.
Even the Great Exhortation of the Prayer Book says: “But if we are to share rightly in the celebration of those holy Mysteries, and be nourished by that spiritual Food, we must remember the dignity of that holy Sacrament. I therefore call upon you to consider how Saint Paul exhorts all persons to prepare themselves carefully before eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup. For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living faith we receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord's Body. Judge yourselves, therefore, lest you be judged by the Lord.”
The above certainly indicates to me a belief that some kind of “objective change” in the bread and wine has taken place, and it’s a change that is not simply in the mind/heart of the recipient. Otherwise the faithful would receive the Body and Blood while the sinful would only receive common bread and wine, and no such warning would be required.
And, of course, long before the Tractarian movement began, the American Episcopal Church had excised the so-called “Black Rubric” (which denounced the adoration of Christ present in the Sacrament) from our 1789 Prayer Book. The custom of the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament (according to the forms and traditions inherited from the Scottish Church) was also maintained in some places here, long before the practice of Reservation was more generally revived during the latter phases of the Oxford Movement.
Kurt Hill
In sweltering Brooklyn, NY
“Anglican doctrine is receptionism. There is no objective change in the 'substantia' of the bread and wine, as taught by Radbertus Paschasius and the fourth Lateran council, following Aristotelianism.”--Al M.
I think you are being a tad dogmatic about this, Al. Perhaps what you say was true for many Anglicans 450 years ago, but even then receptionism was far from a universal view. Certainly in the American Episcopal Church over the centuries, a high doctrine of the Holy Eucharist has been affirmed by many. Today, the view of an “objective” Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is undoubtedly held by most American Episcopalians.
Ratramnus, (Radbertus’ major opponent during his lifetime), advocated a conception of the Real Presence that I think is far “more Anglican” than mere receptionism. As I understand his writings, Ratramnus believed that Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist is spiritual, rather than carnal (Radbertus’ position). He also stressed that faith is key to unlocking the benefits of Christ’s Body and Blood (something which, as far as I know, even Radbertus himself did not deny). Yet while Christ’s Presence in the Blessed Sacrament is spiritual, nonetheless, it is Real and objective for Ratramnus, and not simply a matter of subjective belief. And as far as I know, Ratramnus never opposed the custom of the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament--which was becoming increasingly popular in monasteries and convents during his lifetime.
Even the Great Exhortation of the Prayer Book says: “But if we are to share rightly in the celebration of those holy Mysteries, and be nourished by that spiritual Food, we must remember the dignity of that holy Sacrament. I therefore call upon you to consider how Saint Paul exhorts all persons to prepare themselves carefully before eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup. For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living faith we receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord's Body. Judge yourselves, therefore, lest you be judged by the Lord.”
The above certainly indicates to me a belief that some kind of “objective change” in the bread and wine has taken place, and it’s a change that is not simply in the mind/heart of the recipient. Otherwise the faithful would receive the Body and Blood while the sinful would only receive common bread and wine, and no such warning would be required.
And, of course, long before the Tractarian movement began, the American Episcopal Church had excised the so-called “Black Rubric” (which denounced the adoration of Christ present in the Sacrament) from our 1789 Prayer Book. The custom of the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament (according to the forms and traditions inherited from the Scottish Church) was also maintained in some places here, long before the practice of Reservation was more generally revived during the latter phases of the Oxford Movement.
Kurt Hill
In sweltering Brooklyn, NY
Hi Janice,
I am not personally offended by what you said; but am surprised at your description of Anglican eucharistic presidency!
The points you make in your latest comment are important, and lie precisely at the limits of my ability to write appropriately and accurately about communion. So:
Yes, considering whether non-believers receive nurture if they happen to participate in communion is a timely reminder of the strength of Anglican 'receptionist' approaches. Bluntly put, where there is no faith, there is no change in the one without faith.
Yet, we Anglicans do not place so much value on 'faith' that we say that it does not matter who presides over the eucharist. I suggest that, in the end, we are not saying that the ordained priest has special powers of transformation, but we are saying that God blesses us through the ordered life of the church - an ordering we are committed to because that is the ordering that developed through the Holy Spirit's work in the church in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages.
I see what you are saying about God being sovereign and not having to effect some change because we have commanded God to do so. But I suggest, in line with above, that in the eucharist the church is not telling God what to do, but we are doing what God in Christ through the Holy Spirit has told us to do!
Thanks various ones of you for various comments - I am learning much.
I had read about communion being given to the dog in Canada.
What is more shocking? The giving of communion to a dog, or the inability to perceive there might be something wrong with doing so!?
"What is more shocking? The giving of communion to a dog, or the inability to perceive there might be something wrong with doing so!?" Ah yes, but even the dogs may eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table ...
In response to an earlier comment, we might wonder whether the dog ate condemnation to itself, by not discerning the Lord's Body ... until we get past the traditional Prayer Book admonition to Paul's original text in 1 Corinthians 11:29, where the context makes it certain the apostle was referring to his audience's failure to discern the needs of the gathered fellowship, as the true Body in which Christ makes himself present. It was their indifference to the relational dimension of their eucharistic gathering that made them sickly, not their failure to hold correct beliefs about the eucharistic elements.
Back to the dog. Are there dogs in heaven? I know some Christians who will not be so keen about arriving there if the answer is No. Are celestial dogs allowed anywhere near the heavenly feast? We have no information on that one that I know of, but I would guess a Yes. If the Canadian priest believed this and was attempting to enact a sign of grace towards the dog and its human family, then we could classify this as an act of faith, and withhold judgement. Was the context of this action one in which the needs of the gathered community were being addressed? From the outside, the priest seems to be flying in the face of widespread Anglican sensibilities, and the mandate inherent in our ordination vows, thus constituting a failure to discern the wider Body of Christ. Was there episcopal approval of this innovation? Is there a new Canadian provincial policy? Will this come before the AC Standing Committee? The Anglican world awaits another moment of judgement...
Yes Janice (and Al M), a good parallel between the two dominical sacraments, which Calvin also makes. While I appreciate your point about human control, which appears to be often lain at the feet of RCC especially, I sense Calvin would stress two further things that place the emphasis more where Peter suggests in his reply. (1) We are only doing what Jesus has told us to (as PC says) - but from that, we need to stress also the sheer promise of our Lord’s to share his Life with those who so do; the Bread of Life shall nourish our souls, as he promises. Then (2) all this is realised by and through and with the Holy Spirit; I don’t think many acknowledge enough Calvin’s pneumatology; it is the Spirit who ‘links’ the heavenly Christ present at the Father’s Right Hand with Jesus’ earthly people, making Christ Really Present to and among them. If that’s “objective”, so be it! (ref Kurt)
And so back to an earlier comment of mine re “validity”. The language of “transubstantiation” has many roles as I understand it (some seriously misguided, IMHO, due to what a great RC scholar himself identifies as the “Arian backlash” - for another day). But one feature is surely to insist upon “objectivity”, or “ontological” presence. For my money, rather than go down the 1215 Lateran route, insisting on “transubstantiation” as the only valid expression of this Presence, I would rather stick with Calvin’s desire: (1) to avoid any “magical” overtones and so (2) stress the sheer mystery, which is beyond human comprehension, and so then (3) be well aware of God’s “accommodating himself to us in revelation”, which leads Calvin to his rich appreciation of Biblical language in its non literal senses. This last cuts in at least two ways: (1) cautioning against the literal “is” of “This is my Body” (contra Luther according to Calvin); (2) reminding some modernist fundos that even their great Reformation Teacher was more subtle probably than they in their views of Scripture!
Yes Janice (and Al M), a good parallel between the two dominical sacraments, which Calvin also makes. While I appreciate your point about human control, which appears to be often lain at the feet of RCC especially, I sense Calvin would stress two further things that place the emphasis more where Peter suggests in his reply. (1) We are only doing what Jesus has told us to (as PC says) - but from that, we need to stress also the sheer promise of our Lord’s to share his Life with those who so do; the Bread of Life shall nourish our souls, as he promises. Then (2) all this is realised by and through and with the Holy Spirit; I don’t think many acknowledge enough Calvin’s pneumatology; it is the Spirit who ‘links’ the heavenly Christ present at the Father’s Right Hand with Jesus’ earthly people, making Christ Really Present to and among them. If that’s “objective”, so be it! (ref Kurt)
And so back to an earlier comment of mine re “validity”. The language of “transubstantiation” has many roles as I understand it (some seriously misguided, IMHO, due to what a great RC scholar himself identifies as the “Arian backlash” - for another day). But one feature is surely to insist upon “objectivity”, or “ontological” presence. For my money, rather than go down the 1215 Lateran route, insisting on “transubstantiation” as the only valid expression of this Presence, I would rather stick with Calvin’s desire: (1) to avoid any “magical” overtones and so (2) stress the sheer mystery, which is beyond human comprehension, and so then (3) be well aware of God’s “accommodating himself to us in revelation”, which leads Calvin to his rich appreciation of Biblical language in its non literal senses. This last cuts in at least two ways: (1) cautioning against the literal “is” of “This is my Body” (contra Luther according to Calvin); (2) reminding some modernist fundos that even their great Reformation Teacher was more subtle probably than they in their views of Scripture!
Thanks Howard for your musings. Firstly, you are of course correct to highlight the communal aspect of 1 Cor 11 and Paul’s judgments around their lack of ‘koinonia’. Yet in the light of 1 Cor 10, I sense you establish a false dichotomy: there is a real link between the Body via the elements and the Body that is the gathering - which the Tradition has more than emphasised (one only has to think of de Lubac).
Secondly, I do sincerely trust (it is hard to gauge via this medium) that your subsequent canine musings are ... satire. And while I too like EM Forster’s debates in A Passage to India between a CoE chaplain and a guru where “they drew the line at bacteria” as the life form that would not be found in heaven, with everything above that line being there, this has nothing to do with how a lesser creature than the human might or might not become a partaker of the Bread of Life. Rom 8 makes clear that the rest are waiting for OUR redemption and liberation.
So; one more time: that Cheshire Cat Smile is fading even faster at this one ...
Greetings
I rejoice in Peter’s wonderful lucid, succinct summary (especially July 26, 2010 12:13 PM ). Christ is present everywhere, in the poor and sick, in the scriptures read it is Christ who speaks to us, in the one baptizing – it is Christ who baptizes, in the one presiding at the Eucharist, in the community of the baptized, in the bread and wine of communion. It is true, some Christians follow a doctrine of the real absence (Christ is present everywhere except in the bread and the wine of Holy Communion cf. John 6:60,66) It is sometimes fascinating that those who press metaphors and images to the most literalistic in their interpretations of the scriptures, do the exact opposite when it comes to the scriptural teaching on the Eucharist! [Romaphobia anyone?]
No one, in either scripture or tradition, has suggested that in baptism the water becomes the Holy Spirit.
I would also stress a shift in focus from Janice’s rather magical “properly ordained people who utter the right invocations” to the community of the faithful, gathering at Christ’s command, to celebrate what Christ commands, and praying together, led by the presider, that this celebration be for us what Christ intends. And yes, I think it is quite OK to affirm that God is faithful to God’s promise to fulfill that prayer as Christ said would so be. I think it is, similarly, quite OK to affirm that when two Christians marry, God joins them together. Or any number of promises that God makes, to which God is faithful. I cannot for a moment understand why Janice sees such a belief as an attack on God’s sovereignty.
It is hard to think of many other topics on which there has been more theological reflection and devotional literature. This is the command Christ gives us, the night before He dies.
The Anglican NZ Prayer Book has:
You make our bread Christ’s body
to heal and reconcile
and to make us the body of Christ.
You make our wine Christ’s living sacrificial blood
to redeem the world.
Blessings
Bosco
http://www.liturgy.co.nz
"This last cuts in at least two ways: (1) cautioning against the literal “is” of “This is my Body” (contra Luther according to Calvin); (2) reminding some modernist fundos that even their great Reformation Teacher was more subtle probably than they in their views of Scripture!"
Thank you, Bryden, for amplifying my point that Cranmer was really following Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Supper, and at the heart of it is a doctrine of the Holy Spirit, making the heavenly Lord present to the believer - not the Catholic Aristotelianism of transubstantiation. Receptionism is taught by Article 28. Art. 29 also affirms that 'the Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith.. in no wise are they partakers of Christ'.
I don't know what "modernist [or modern?] fundos" refers to, but Calvin's own debt to the more apophatic Greek fathers is clear to those who peruse the Institutes.
To counter Howard's witticism, see Matt. 7:6.
Al M.
Just a question on stylistics. Bosco writes: "I think it is quite OK to affirm that God is faithful to God’s promise ... I think it is, similarly, quite OK to affirm that when two Christians marry, God joins them together. Or any number of promises that God makes, to which God is faithful."
This reads a little oddly. Bosco, are you averse to using 'he' or 'his' with reference to God? If so, why?
Al M.
I can't help feeling that the question of eucharistic presence is a matter of both-and. It would, I think, be quite unanglican to say that there was some physical change in the bread and wine, even one based on Aristotle's somewhat mystical (not to say incredible) ideas - with or without Thomas Aquinas's imprimatur. Lancelot Andrewes denounced transubstantiation as merely monophysite. But he did insist on the real presence nevertheless, just so long as it was understood not illegitimately to undermine the reality of this world in favour of the next. Thus the consecrated sacrament is both really bread and wine,and really the body and blood at one and the same time - nestorianism being no more acceptable than monophytism.
To my mind, however, the matter hinges on the question as to what is meant by body and blood. In a sense Aquinas himself saw that there was something a bit funny going on here. So he taught that a perfect body (which must be true of the Risen Christ) always has its blood in it, and perfect blood, likewise, is always with its body. Well, is he getting a bit too confident, not to say technical here? I rather think so. My question would be, "What is your body for?" And my answer would be (not surprisingly, I think) "To make you present." Because without one you aren't - at least not in this world. Of course, God is present everywhere, but in his dealings with us he has graciously focussed his presence in special ways for our salvation. In the New Covenant, the Sacrament has been, for most Christians, the greatest of these.
I can't help feeling that the question of eucharistic presence is a matter of both-and. It would, I think, be quite unanglican to say that there was some physical change in the bread and wine, even one based on Aristotle's somewhat mystical (not to say incredible) ideas - with or without Thomas Aquinas's imprimatur. Lancelot Andrewes denounced transubstantiation as merely monophysite. But he did insist on the real presence nevertheless, just so long as it was understood not illegitimately to undermine the reality of this world in favour of the next. Thus the consecrated sacrament is both really bread and wine,and really the body and blood at one and the same time - nestorianism being no more acceptable than monophytism.
To my mind, however, the matter hinges on the question as to what is meant by body and blood. In a sense Aquinas himself saw that there was something a bit funny going on here. So he taught that a perfect body (which must be true of the Risen Christ) always has its blood in it, and perfect blood, likewise, is always with its body. Well, is he getting a bit too confident, not to say technical here? I rather think so. My question would be, "What is your body for?" And my answer would be (not surprisingly, I think) "To make you present." Because without one you aren't - at least not in this world. Of course, God is present everywhere, but in his dealings with us he has graciously focussed his presence in special ways for our salvation. In the New Covenant, the Sacrament has been, for most Christians, the greatest of these.
Bosco, Thanks for your affirmation that my thinking is along 'right lines'!
Carl, That is one of the most brilliant bits of concise writing I have ever come across on the nature of Christ's body and blood in relation to his Real Presence. Thank you.
"My question would be, "What is your body for?" And my answer would be (not surprisingly, I think) "To make you present." Because without one you aren't - at least not in this world. Of course, God is present everywhere, but in his dealings with us he has graciously focussed his presence in special ways for our salvation."
But this misses out (or neglects to state) the *pneumatological* character of Christ's presence with us. When Scriptures affirms that 'the Lord is with us' it means this in a particular salvific or strengthening way; and this happens *always* (since the Ascension) by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Packer's book 'Keep in step with the Spirit' is good on this. Christ's presence with us is not physical but spiritual - but nonetheless real. But the parousia has not happened yet.
Al M.
A really quick one let alone a "concise" one.
Peter/Carl: Robert W Jenson, a US Lutheran, is also clear throughout his well established work that "bodies make subjects available". Just so (a phrase beloved of RWJ), the Word-made-flesh enables in God's freedom his availability to humans (e.g. 1 Jn 1:1-4, Jn 1:18). Thereafter, "Visible Words" (RWJ after St Augustine) are the means of the Glorified Christ's "availability" to his faithful people. Simpliciter! And really rather "valid" IMHO.
Anonymous says that receptionism is taught by Article 28. If that is so, it is contrary to the intention of Bishop Edmund Guest who wrote it, and who said (in a letter to Mr Secretary Cecil (if I remember rightly) that he deliberately inserted the word "given" in order to make it quite clear that at the consecration the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It's true that Bishop Guest objected to Article 29's insistence that the Body of Christ is eaten only by faith, but as the Sacrament is actually about presence and relationship, I can't see how it could be otherwise. And just as an afterthought, it's not uninteresting, I think, to find Cardinal Newman writing: "When the Host is carried in procession, the Body of Christ does not move." That certainly gives me pause for thought.
You have made me pause too, Carl!
Nice one Carl! (Re JHN) And thanks for the nice distinctions in the history lesson of which I was ignorant.
Yet I not only “pause” but wonder (not in awe) whether JHN has succumbed here to ‘container views of space’, even by way of the contrast. For among the many things I have learned from Tom Torrance is the delightful recasting of Hellenistic thought via the great Nicene theologians, notably re dualism on the one hand and notions of both space and time on the other (curiously anticipating Einsteinian cosmology, in TFT’s view).
In which light (plus a bit of Jensonian theology of temporality injected as well), such a comment as this is plain nonsensical, even as it is perhaps rather Platonic.
"...he deliberately inserted the word "given" in order to make it quite clear that at the consecration the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ."
The word "become" is not there in the Articles but rather it is stated that 'The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, in the Sipper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner', i.e., not physically or carnally, while transubstantiation is explicitly rejected.
Receptionism is taught explicitly in: 'to such as rightly, worthily and with faith, receive the same' and in: 'And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith' (both Art. 28).
Newman (which one: pre- or post-conversion?) is a dodgy guide to the meaning of the Articles. Remember the storm he raised over Tract XC on transubstantiation.
As for Art. 28 - well, if only the Pope hadn't excommunicated Elizabeth and commanded his English faithful to kill the heretic. But then we might not have ended up with James VI and I and the United Kingdom...
Al M.
"As for Art. 28" - should be 29.
Al M.
I have been otherwise engaged over the last week travelling about in Mitteleuropa otherwise I would have seen the comments made by Anon and would have made answer before now. If I remember correctly, nobody believes that you can receive the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ without faith. That would involve something close to capharnaism, at the very least. If you can describe the Risen Christ as being "physically and carnally" present in the same way as we are on this earth, then I would agree that we have a problem. But that is not at all what the doctrine of the Real Presence means.
Post a Comment