• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

What do Oxford Movement &Anglican Articles of Religion say on objective presence

Do the Articles of Religion teach the objective direct real presence in the Eucharist elements?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • No, they teach against it

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • They teach it one place and against it another place

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
May I please ask:
1. Are the Articles of Religion definitive of Anglicanism?
The Church of England and its churches in Australia and South Africa say that they lay out Anglican doctrine. The Episcopal Church USA puts them in their Historical Documents section but I don't think has an official position.

2. Do the Articles of Religion teach an objective presence in the Elements?

I will write about this next.

3. Did the Oxford movement teach a real, direct presence in bread?

The difficulty with me understanding this is its terminology, because for a long time there have been two positions in their church - Cranmer says that Jesus' body stays in heaven and the bread is a symbol and instrument effectively acting as if it were Jesus' body. The Oxford movement on the other hand asserted an "objective" presence in bread.

The hard part is that many in the two Anglican camps use the same kind of terminology. (A) They may both say that they affirm a "real presence", that the elements are "more than symbols", they may both affirm that "this is Christ's body", that Jesus has a "real" "spiritual presence" there. In fact, Cranmer's followers accepted the phrase that the bread "partakes" of Christ.

At they same time, (B) both sides may say that there is no "corporal" or "fleshly" presence in the bread, that it is not Christ's "natural" body that He was born with, that Christ's "natural" body remains in heaven, that there is no "fleshly" or "physical eating" of the body, that the wicked do not "eat" Jesus' body, that the presence is "by grace" and the (one singular) mean/method of eating is faith.

In my opinion, for many Lutherans or Eastern Orthodox these phrases in the first category A) match our understanding and what we consider to be a "real" presence in bread in the normal meaning of the word "real". Meanwhile, many of the phrases in the second category B) would usually come across as Cranmer's Virtualism.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Charles I added a 17th c. preface to the Articles of Religion saying they should be understood literally:

And that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense.​

Articles 28 and 29 say on the Eucharist:

XVIII. Of the Lord's Supper

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 is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death:
(A) insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same,
(B) the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
...
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, (C) only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.​

XXIX. Of (D) the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper


The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do (E) carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet (F) in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.​

 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Let me begin by saying that some Anglicans think the Articles teach a direct, real presence in bread. One of them, Bicknell, writes:
    The attempts made to state the relation of gift in Holy Communion to the outward elements may be summed up as follows:
    (a) The “Receptionist” view. ... Christ is present only in the hearts of the faithful recipients. His coming is connected not with the consecration of the elements but with the reception. This view was taught by Calvin: it was the necessary corollary of his doctrine of grace. If grace is given only to the few elect, it clearly cannot be possible for all to receive it who receive the bread and wine. So its reception must be essentially independent of the reception of the visible elements. The theory has been largely held in the Church of England and was expounded at length by Waterland... It is perfectly tenable by loyal members of the Church of England. There is nothing in the Prayer-Book that definitely contradicts it.
    (b) The Real Presence. On this view we hold that we receive through the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ, because... He has brought the elements into a mysterious union with Himself. He has, as it were, taken them up into the fullness of His ascended life and made them the vehicle of imparting that life to His members. Thus He is in a real sense present not only in the devout communicant but in the consecrated elements. ... The Presence is spiritual, not material.
    This, in some form, is the teaching of the Roman and Eastern Churches, of Luther, of the Fathers and early liturgies, and has always been held by many within the Church of England.
Bicknell asks about the phrase "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ":

    What is meant by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ?
    (i) We turn first to Jn 6. ... Throughout, the thought is of identity of life between the believer and Christ. His “body and blood” primarily represent His perfect humanity. The living Christ bestows upon His members the strength of a perfect human life, offered in sacrifice and triumphant over sin and death, in order to cleanse and refresh our weak and tainted lives. In eating and drinking by a deliberate and voluntary act we take into ourselves something that is outside ourselves, in order that it may become part of ourselves and so our bodies may be strengthened. So in the Holy Communion by a deliberate and voluntary act we receive the life of Christ into our souls that it may become our life.
    http://newscriptorium.com/assets/docs/anglican/39-articles/bicknell5.htm

For Bicknell, "partaking" of Christ's body means a communion and uniting with that body.

Turning to the Articles' declaration that "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ", the Oxford movement leader Pusey reasoned that this statement entails that bread itself must be united with Christ's body, ie. the real presence. He writes:
    The words of the English Article are indeed so plain that they can hardly receive either illustration or proof. Our Article explains communion by "partaking of;" and says, with the Apostle, that "the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ"... The Apostle [Paul in Corinthians] expresses the way in which we become "partakers of Christ." He says "the bread" ... "is a communion or partaking of the Body of Christ." ... We become partakers of Christ, because we are partakers of His Body and Blood. "According both to the declaration of our Lord", says S. Hilary, "and our faith, it is truly Flesh and truly Blood. And these, received and drunk into us, cause that both we are in Christ, and Christ is in us."... But "the bread" would not be "the communion of the Body of Christ", unless, through it, that Body was conveyed to us.
    SOURCE: The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ By Edward Bouverie Pusey.

Another Anglican, CLaude Moss, looked to the intent of one author, Bp. Guest, to say Art 28 teaches the real presence:
Article 28 says: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner"...
The author of this article, Bishop Guest, has left it on record that he inserted the word "given" in order to assert that the bread and wine become by consecration the Body and Blood of Christ
http://www.katapi.org.uk/ChristianFaith/LVIII.htm
An essay elsewhere explains why "given" here implies the real presence:
This change made in the article of 1563 has been interpreted as an affirmation of the great truth that safeguards the doctrine of the real presence (Bicknell, 1963: 399). Bishop Gibson argues that whereas the body of Christ is ‘given, taken and eaten in the Supper’, it is ‘received and eaten’ by faith. The body of Christ is ‘given’ not by faith, but there first, or else it cannot be received (Gibson, 1910: 661). This analysis fits well with Bishop Guest’s argument for a real presence. It also fits well with a view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist based on moderate realism.
http://anglicaneucharistictheology.com/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/4/24_The_Articles_Concerning_the_Eucharist.html

Another writer, Enraght, said that Guest did intend the real presence here:
BISHOP GESTE, the author of the 28th Article, says of the Real Presence,—not merely that "Christ’s Body is in the Sacrament," or that It is present "under the form of bread and wine ;" but he says that – "Christ’s Body" "is undoubtedly in the bread," and that "It is presented in the bread (as questionless It is)," and that "It is presented in the accidents of the bread." He says the "Presence of Christ’s Body in the Bread" may be explained by "the personal presence of Christ’s Godhead in His Manhood," and "the presence of the soul in the body."
http://anglicanhistory.org/england/enraght/realpresence.html
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
I don't think the articles can be construed to teach receptionism, that seems dishonest.  Receptionism is not a "real presence".

Most high church Anglicans seem to reject receptionism.  Receptionism seems wholely the domain of low church Anglicans.  My perception of low church Anglicans is that they do not represent an authentic Anglicanism, merely a tolerated religious opinion for the purposes of what Orthodox could see as a dispensation.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
27
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
To quote Auberon Waugh, one of the best columnists Blighty has ever had:

Traditionally, the great strength of the Church of England has lain in the fact that on any moral or political issue it could produce such a wide divergence of opinion that no one — from the Pope to Mao Tse-tung — could say with any confidence that he was not an Anglican. The High Church will tell you that it believes above all in the efficacy of its sacraments, the Low Church will tell you that all human wisdom is contained in the Bible, which only Anglicans can understand properly, and the Moderns will tell you anything which enters their heads.
That being said, you can't hate Anglicans. They're terribly cuddly.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Age
39
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
I don't find massacring and raping one's way across several continents to be especially cuddly but there's no arguing with taste.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Age
39
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Daedelus1138 said:
I don't think the articles can be construed to teach receptionism, that seems dishonest.  Receptionism is not a "real presence".

Most high church Anglicans seem to reject receptionism.  Receptionism seems wholely the domain of low church Anglicans.  My perception of low church Anglicans is that they do not represent an authentic Anglicanism, merely a tolerated religious opinion for the purposes of what Orthodox could see as a dispensation.
Hmm I don't think we can really point to an authentic Anglicanism unless we want to go back to what is basically Calvinism with liturgy and bishops. A lot what we call high church came in the 19th century and would have raised eyebrows even among previous high churchmen.
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
I've actually being visiting the local Episcopal cathedral on Wednesdays for a change of pace occasionally.  Lutheranism is at times a bit one-note.  The cathedral has a new priest doing healing services and he's a good preacher.

American Episcopalianism has more of a "center" than the Church of England historically. 

Anglicans have been, for the most part ,very good at worship.  And worship I think is one of the key things I think we should get out of church.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
27
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
Daedelus1138 said:
I've actually being visiting the local Episcopal cathedral on Wednesdays for a change of pace occasionally.  Lutheranism is at times a bit one-note.  The cathedral has a new priest doing healing services and he's a good preacher.

American Episcopalianism has more of a "center" than the Church of England historically.
Ah, well. Episcopalianism is just fashionable upper middle class liberalism with robes and incense, if you ask me.

Daedelus1138 said:
Anglicans have been, for the most part ,very good at worship.  And worship I think is one of the key things I think we should get out of church.
The old 17th century Book of Common Prayer has some good prose. At least Anglicanism's got that going for it.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
27
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
Iconodule said:
I don't find massacring and raping one's way across several continents to be especially cuddly but there's no arguing with taste.
Painting the map pink might turn out to have been the salvation of Christianity, or at any rate of Catholicism and Anglicanism.
 

Justin Kolodziej

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
43
Faith
Kierkegaardian absurdity
Jurisdiction
Metropolis of Atlanta
Cyrillic said:
To quote Auberon Waugh, one of the best columnists Blighty has ever had:

Traditionally, the great strength of the Church of England has lain in the fact that on any moral or political issue it could produce such a wide divergence of opinion that no one — from the Pope to Mao Tse-tung — could say with any confidence that he was not an Anglican. The High Church will tell you that it believes above all in the efficacy of its sacraments, the Low Church will tell you that all human wisdom is contained in the Bible, which only Anglicans can understand properly, and the Moderns will tell you anything which enters their heads.
That being said, you can't hate Anglicans. They're terribly cuddly.
I am not an Anglican, because I reject any "church" that accepts every heresy whatsoever.

That being said, you can't hate Anglicans, but you can pity them because they don't even realize what a sad state their religion is in.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Daedelus1138 said:
I don't think the articles can be construed to teach receptionism, that seems dishonest. 
Thank you for sharing your interpretation, Daedelus. Next I want to share the commentaries of Anglican theologians who say the Articles don't teach a direct objective presence and ask your opinion.
 
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Faith
Orthogringo
Jurisdiction
GOARCH
I should ask my boss who pretty high Church Anglican, her parish follows the 1928 Common Book of Prayer, and dreads the 1979 version. Still how should approach this question in love, and curiosity?
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
The Episcopal Church in the US is doing better than some other denominations, and is actually experiencing slight growth.  Episcopalians, like the Orthodox, are picking up burnt-out evangelicals.  Though they seem to be getting the ones than veer liberal.

Mainline Lutherans seem to be in free-fall, their quietism is their worst enemy and they have been in an identity crisis ever since the ELCA was formed.  The evangelicals that are picked up seem to be those from very damaging backgrounds like Pentecostals or Holiness churches.  Nadia Bolz Weber (the tattoed "Pastrix") is a good example.  But their ethos probably doesn't fit the optimism of a lot of other evangelicals. 
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Let me here begin to lay out the views of Anglican theologians who teach that the Articles deny a direct real presence in bread. One commentary I read said that the bishops who promulgated the articles at their time of approval in the 16th century tended to deny a direct objective presence in bread, and quoted them. I don't have the citation ready, but I can share quotes from the three earliest Anglican commentaries I found on the Articles, dating from the 16th to beginning of the 17th centuries.

Let's begin by discussing Article 28.


Rodgers' 1586 commentary reads into Article 28 the following proposition: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, after an heavenly and spiritual, not after a carnal sort". Rodgers added:
    Jointly we withstand the adversaries thereof whosoever... The Synusiasts or Ubiquitaries [Rodger's name for Lutherans], which think the body of Christ so is present in the supper, as his said body, with bread and wine, by one and the same mouth, at one and the same time, of all and every communicant, is eaten corporally and received into the belly.
Bp. Gilbert Burnet proposes in his 1699 commentary on Article 28 that the Greek fathers originally said that the Eucharistic elements were figures of Christ but that later the Greek Church , especially at the Seventh Council at Nice, declared it to be the "true body of Christ". Burnett wrote:
    the opinion of Damascene and of most of the Greek Church was that there was an assumption of the bread and wine into a union with the body of Christ... [Burnett then writes that Damascene "falsified" tradition by denying that the elements were anti-types of the body]

    The Lutherans believe a Consubstantiation and that both Christ's body and blood and the substance of the elements are together in the Sacrament: that some explain by an ubiquity.... whereas others of them think that since the words of Christ must needs be true in a literal sense, his body and blood is therefore in the sacrament, but in, with, and under the bread and wine. All this we think is ill grounded, and is neither agreeable to the words of the institution nor to the nature of things. .... The impossibility of a body's being without extension , or in more places at once lies against this.... We still hold communion with bodies of men that as we judge think wrong, but yet do both live well and maintain the purity of the worship of God.
Bp. Burnett next writes that God is everywhere and so God is in the elements of the Eucharist too. This assertion is a bit confusing. Does this count as a belief in a real objective presence in bread? It seems that EOs would say that when Jesus said "this is my body", Jesus meant He was present in the elements more specifically than God just being present everywhere in the universe in general.

Burnett says that the elements aren't to be reserved because Christ did not say to do that and that the command to "Take, eat" means that they are only a sacrament when they are given and received.

John Ellis took the Articles to oppose Christ's body itself being directly in the elements in his 1700 Defense of the Articles:
    It is called the true Body and true Blood of Christ; but only secondarily and represented as such. So we say of Caesar‘s Picture: This is Caesar that overcame Pompey.

    ...
    Christ can do all things which do not imply a Contradiction; but it is a Contradiction to say, that one and the same Body should be both in Heaven and in the Sacrament at the same time."
    (http://www.anglican.net/works/john-ellis-defensio-fidei-defence-thirty-nine-articles)
Now let's consider Article 29.

Article 29 was a later addition to the Articles of Religion. An Anglo-Catholic writer, William Tighe, notes how this came about:
    39 Articles... were approved in Convocation and subsequently presented to Elizabeth I. The Queen, it appears, made two changes, insisting on the total omission of Article 29 (“Of the Wicked which do not eat the Body of Christ in the Use of the Lord’s Supper”), probably because of its clear repudiation of the Lutheran sacramental teaching that both the good and the wicked do indeed receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, the former to their benefit, the latter to their condemnation — she allowed the inclusion of Article 29 only in 1571, as we shall see with an accompanying qualification...

For reasons which remain obscure, Queen Elizabeth yielded to the insistence of almost all of her bishops in the 1571 Convocation that the Articles be reissued, this time with the inclusion of the previously vetoed Article 29, and this despite a last-minute plea from Guest that it remain excluded. At the same time, however, this same Convocation passed a canon asserting that the Articles were in agreement with the “Catholic bishops and fathers” of the Early Church and insisted that they be interpreted accordingly. This was a remarkable canon, for despite the fact that advocates of all sides to the 16th-Century religious conflict, Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed alike, were given to claiming that their particular doctrinal stances and, in some cases, distinctive practices, were in accord with those of the Early Church Fathers, or at least with those of high standing (such as St. Augustine), none were willing to require, or even permit, their confessional stances to be judged by, or subordinated to, a hypothetical “Patristic consensus” of the first four or five centuries of Christianity.
The insertion of Article 29 made a controversy because Bishops Guest and Cheyney who both taught a direct presence in bread wrote privately against it. Of them, Bp. Cheyney refused to accept Art. 29 and was suspended as a bishop for several weeks until he did.

Bp. Gibson explained Bp. Guest's understanding of Article 29:
in a remarkable letter addressed to Cecil in 1571[:] Guest was very anxious that Article 29, ‘Impii non manducant’, [ "the wicked do not eat" ] which had been withdrawn before publication in 1563 should not now be restored, or receive any sanction ‘because it is quite contrary to the Scripture and the Fathers’; and in order to make the twenty-eighth article harmonize with the view that the wicked do partake of the body, though not fruitfully, he suggested that the word ‘profitably’ should be inserted, and that the words should run, ‘the mean whereby the body of Christ is profitably received and eaten in the Supper is faith’. The article was, however, left untouched, and the twenty-ninth was, against his wish, inserted...

    SOURCE: Gibsons's book, excerpted at:
    https://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/the-christmas-articles/
Turning to Article 29, the commentator Rodgers , cited previously, writes:
The adversaries of this doctrine are The Ubiquitaries, both Lutheran and popish; they saying the very body of Christ, at the Lord's supper, is eaten as well of the wicked as of the godly; these affirming, that all communicants, bad and good, do eat the very and natural body of Christ Jesus; they saying that the true and real body of Christ, in, with, under the bread and wine, may be eaten, chewed, and digested, even of Turks, which never were of the Church...
Bp. Burnett writes about Article 29 in his 1699 commentary:
This Article arises naturally out of the former, and depends upon it, for if Christ's body is corporally present in the sacrament, all persons good or bad, who receive the Sacrament do also receive Christ: on the other hand if Christ is present only in a spiritual manner and if the mean that receives Christ is faith, then such as believe not, do not receive him.
So my questions to those who like Daedelus1138 who see the Articles as consistently allowing for a real direct presence in bread include:

1. How should we address the fact that those on both sides of the issue (including Bps. Cheyney and Guest) saw Article 29 as denying an objective presence in bread?

2. What is the importance of the fact that the commentaries on the Articles most contemporary to them understand the Articles as denying a direct specific objective presence in bread?


3. Anglo Catholics interpret Article 29 as only denying that the wicked and unfaithful "partake" of Christ in the sense of communing with him. Article 28 teaches that Christ is only eaten spiritually, and so perhaps one may conclude that Article 29 is only teaching that the unworthy do not perform this particular spiritual eating. If that was the only intent of Article 29 however, then why did Article 29 become so important to insert that the Church of England was willing to suspend bishops for opposing its insertion?

Roman Catholics were not claiming that those who disbelieve in Christ are in spiritual communion with him. So why did the C.o.E. insist on adding this article so intensely if, as some Anglo-Catholics claim, the doctrine espoused in Article 29 was shared by Catholics and Lutherans at the time?
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
Rakovsky, it seems some of those quotes show a Calvinist influence of separating the symbol and the sign in an immoderate fashion.  Esp. that quote from the 1700's.  I believe earlier Calvinists had less of a tendency towards immoderate nominalism.  The other quote comparing Caesar to a painting could actually be expressing real presence, if not for the radical separation between the bread and heaven.  Again, it's a Calvinist rationalistic tendency about distinguishing heaven as some kind of space up above the earth, something you will not find in Lutheran theology (Lutherans would agree we are surrounded by a "cloud of witnesses", the saints).

But FWIW, I do not necessarily believe the Body of Christ ends up in our stomach.  I don't think its necessary to say Jesus travels through our alimentary canal before being absorbed- that is probably what people are objecting to by "carnal eating".  The Anglican emphasis on receiving Christ in our hearts is probably apt on what is going on.  We eat the bread with our mouths but the body of Christ is meant for our hearts, yet the body of Christ is still really present as the inward reality of the symbol.

I have no doubt Anglicanism went through a period where many bishops were essentially Calvinists on the sacraments.  But not all.  Think of it as Athanasius contra mundum.  Bishop Andrewes was essentially a Lutheran on this matter, some would say he wasn't even really Protestant.

The plain words of the 1662 and later liturgies have the words "the body of Christ given for thee".  It's really sophistry on the part of low churchmen to say that somehow the words having nothing to do with the actions being performed.  The words were added back by Elizabeth I after all who objected to Calvinism.  Yet at the same time I don't think the body of Christ is identical to the bread, it's present "with, in, and under", as the Lutherans say.
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
This might also interest you.  It is from the Lutheran Epitome of the Formula of Concord VII, 41-42 and reinforces what I said about Christ's flesh not being digested:

21. We utterly ‹reject and› condemn the Capernaitic eating of Christ’s body, as though ‹we taught that› His flesh were torn with the teeth and digested like other food . The Sacramentarians—against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests—willfully label us with this view. In this way they make our teaching hateful to their hearers. On the other hand, we hold and believe, according to the simple words of Christ’s testament, the true, yet supernatural eating of Christ’s body and also the drinking of His blood. Human senses and reason do not comprehend 
What we are dealing with is something that is subtle has to remain a bit of a mystery.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Daedelus,

There are two issues here:
1. How to understand the Articles and 2. what your personal views are.

1. Understanding the Articles

I understand your explanation that the quotes from 1586-1700 teach a Calvinist "immoderate nominalism".

In case you still see the Articles as teaching a direct, objective presence in the bread itself, then my question would be what importance you would give to the contemporary commentaries, as well as those of the bishops who were behind Article 29?
Why do you think it was so intensely important to the authors of Article 29 to insert it, if, as some Anglo-Catholics claim, it means that only the faithful are in communion with Jesus - something Christian Churches across the board already agreed on?

You add:
Daedelus1138 said:
The plain words of the 1662 and later liturgies say that the bread is the body of Christ.  It's really sophistry on the part of low churchmen to say that somehow the words don't really mean what they say. The words were added back by Elizabeth I after all who objected to Calvinism.
Here you need to distinguish what the words mean in the Bible from what the words in the BCP meant to its authors in 1662.

I agree with Luther that the Bible doesn't seem to talk that way - Jesus never pointed to a physical object other than his body and say "this is my body" and mean it only symbolically.

On the other hand, Cranmer, Calvin, and others who disagreed with an objective presence were fine with Jesus' phrase "this is my body" and with using language that called the elements "Jesus' body". To them these words meant the bread was there both as a symbol and in its effect/operation. Simply as words on a page in an Anglican book like the 1662 BCP, I find this meaning rational. I agree with Ellis that linguistically, one could call bread "Jesus' body", as one could call a painting of Caesar "Caesar".

In other words, I find it problematic in formal writing to call a painting by the name of what is depicted, but it's linguistically conceivable. So I don't see the simple use of this phrase in the 1662 BCP as necessitating belief in an objective presence.


2. Personal Views
Once while discussing the topic of the objective presence with Anglicans, I was told that even many Lutherans and Catholic laity do not agree with their Churches' official teachings on there being a real, objective presence directly in the bread itself. I don't know what to make of that.

Let me share some quotes categorized by viewpoint with you about the issue you raised about having Christ's body in one's stomach:

Church fathers
A Lutheran member of the Missouri Synod quotes Cyprian as telling how a child who had sacrificed to an idol vomited Christ's body from the stomach:
Then there followed a sobbing and vomiting. In a profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain, the drought sanctified in the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach. So great is the Lord's power, so great is His majesty. ...This much about an infant, which was not yet of an age to speak of the crime committed by others in respect of herself.'
https://www.scribd.com/doc/18759332/A-Case-for-Infant-Communion-in-the-Lutheran-Church-Missouri-Synod

Cranmer's view in Anglicanism
Cranmer wrote:
The spiritual food of Christ's body and blood is not received in the mouth and digested in the stomach like corporal foods. Rather it is received ³with a pure heart and a sincere faith.´
http://www.academia.edu/1318679/A_Critical_Assessment_of_Thomas_Cranmers_Doctrine_of_the_Lords_Supper_Compared_with_the_Theology_of_Contemporary_English_Evangelicalism

Orthodoxy
On the question of whether one should eat bread after communion, Fr. Chizhenko writes in the Orthodox Life site's essay:
"We drink alcohol after [communion].... that the body and blood of Christ went from the mouth to the stomach. Then one eats a piece of prosphorus. "
http://pravlife.org/content/pochemu-posle-prichashcheniya-veruyushchiy-dolzhen-vypit-zapivku-i-sest-kusochek-prosfory

Lutheranism
Philip Lee writes in Against the Protestant Gnostics:
In referring to the Eucharist... Luther approves the words of Augustine: "Why do you make your teeth and stomach ready? Believe and thou hast eaten".... Were this all Luther had to say about the Holy Supper, we could safely assume that he had gnosticized it out of existence. Christians could receive spiritually through gnosis and save their teeth and stomach the effort.
The full quote by Luther is:
"no eating gives life, except the eating of faith, for this is the really spiritual and living eating; as Augustine says: “Why dost thou get ready thy stomach and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” A sacramental eating does not give life, for many eat unworthily".
Luther's point is that having the food in the stomach (sacramental eating) is not what specifically and directly gives life, but rather eating of faith, although while saying this, Luther still taught sacramental eating.

The Form of Concord says:
It is characteristic of the spirit of the age and the doctrine of consubstantiation that they gave rise to all sorts of idle, curious, and unwittingly irreverent speculations about the possible effect of the consecrated elements upon things for which they never were intended. The schoolmen of the Middle Ages, in the interest of transubstantiation, seriously disputed the question whether the eating of the eucharistic bread would kill or sanctify a mouse, or (as the wisest thought) have no effect at all, since the mouse did not receive it sacramentaliter, but only accidentaliter. Orthodox Lutherans of the sixteenth century went even further. Brentius decidedly favored the opinion that the consecrated bread, if eaten by a mouse, was fully as much the body of Christ as Christ was the Son of God in the mother's womb and on the back of an ass. The sacrament, he admitted, was not intended for animals, but neither was it intended for unbelievers, who nevertheless received the very body and blood of Christ. ... The Lutherans in Ansbach disputed about the question whether the body of Christ were actually swallowed, like other food, and digested in the stomach.
...
The usual Lutheran doctrine confines the union of the bread with the body to the time of the use, and hence the term consubstantiation was rejected, if thereby be understood a durabilis inclusio, or permanent conjunction of the sacramental bread and body of Christ.
The Lutheran Bp. Craig Satterlee writes:
Eternal life is being in close communion with Jesus. Eternal life is to remain in Jesus and to have Jesus remain in us. We take Christ’s body and blood into our mouths, into our stomachs, into our bodies, so that Christ remains in us and we remain in Christ. As we eat and drink, Christ moves us closer to himself. Christ moves us closer to the very life of God. Christ moves us closer to himself, so close that we are as intimate with Jesus as the Father is with the Son.
https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=2552

What is your view on these quotes?
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Daedelus1138 said:
This might also interest you.  It is from the Lutheran Epitome of the Formula of Concord VII, 41-42 and reinforces what I said about Christ's flesh not being digested:

21. We utterly ‹reject and› condemn the Capernaitic eating of Christ’s body, as though ‹we taught that› His flesh were torn with the teeth and digested like other food . The Sacramentarians—against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests—willfully label us with this view. In this way they make our teaching hateful to their hearers. On the other hand, we hold and believe, according to the simple words of Christ’s testament, the true, yet supernatural eating of Christ’s body and also the drinking of His blood. Human senses and reason do not comprehend 
What we are dealing with is something that is subtle has to remain a bit of a mystery.
In the Lutheran view, Christ's body is present in a "Spiritual Mode" according to the Book of Concord, the same way that it was in the physical door in John 20 as Jesus walked to meet the apostles. In this Lutheran scheme, the body is not in the form of a solid lump of material flesh, and so capernaitic eating is ruled out. The flesh is not as a solid lump that is torn and digested as a solid lump is digested.
In the Book of Concord, the body is not only "communed", but also swallowed with the mouth. Thus it complains that the Calvinists teach "that He gives us with the bread and wine His true body and blood to eat, to partake of them spiritually through faith, but not bodily with the mouth. "
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php

Elsewhere, the text openly notes that "supernatural eating"(what you highlighed) and "spiritual eating" do not mean the same thing in the Book of Concord, the text explains, as "spiritual eating" does to Cranmer. For the Book of Concord, it means that there is a supernatural aspect to the physical eating, since Jesus is directly in the bread in a supernatural/spiritual state like he was in the door in John 20.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
rakovsky said:
The full quote by Luther is:
"no eating gives life, except the eating of faith, for this is the really spiritual and living eating; as Augustine says: “Why dost thou get ready thy stomach and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” A sacramental eating does not give life, for many eat unworthily".
PS My view is that Luther is saying that using your stomach and teeth is "sacramental eating". And Luther does teach that sacramental eating occurs, and he also teaches that sacramental eating is performed even by the unworthy, by which he openly concluded that the unworthy actually eat Jesus' body.

My conclusion is that this system of thought entails Jesus' body in the bread passing into the stomache with the bread.
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
Personally, I am a bit skeptical of stories of Eucharistic miracles.  But I don't think Eucharistic miracles contradict what I'm saying necessarily. 

Anglican theology evolves, so it's difficult to say what relevance those views have for today. 

Here's a video by the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church talking about the Eucharist.  Perhaps he is too vague for what you are looking for. I  think he makes a good point that our western culture finds it difficult to talk about what happens at the Eucharist:

https://youtu.be/USOMZpGheBc?list=PLTLG3h2b4W6DXhArRUmnjhH_k4YDvuaLB


 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
Cyrillic said:
Daedelus1138 said:
Anglican theology evolves
It has to exist in order to evolve.
While Anglicanism is more broad than Orthodoxy... I still think its sophistry to say there's no such thing as Anglican theology.

C.S. Lewis is the perfect example of Anglican theology.  His Mere Christianity is quintessentially Anglican.  That's what Anglicanism is at its core.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
27
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
Daedelus1138 said:
Cyrillic said:
Daedelus1138 said:
Anglican theology evolves
It has to exist in order to evolve.
While Anglicanism is more broad than Orthodoxy... I still think its sophistry to say there's no such thing as Anglican theology.

C.S. Lewis is the perfect example of Anglican theology.  His Mere Christianity is quintessentially Anglican.  That's what Anglicanism is at its core.
The C.S. Lewis who wrote in the introduction to Mere Christianity that "I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else."?
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Daedelus1138 said:
Personally, I am a bit skeptical of stories of Eucharistic miracles.  But I don't think Eucharistic miracles contradict what I'm saying necessarily. 
Dear Daedalus,

Sorry if I was not clearer. I was not using the claim of a miracle to prove an objective presence.

Rather, I had searched for what the different views were on Christ's body being in the stomach, since you wrote: "I do not necessarily believe the Body of Christ ends up in our stomach.  I don't think its necessary to say Jesus travels through our alimentary canal".

Among Patristics, I found St. Cyprian's quote: "the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach."

So my point was not to show that Cyprian's miracle happened, but rather whether Cyprian thought Jesus' body ended up in the stomach. Do you see what I mean, Daedalus?

So Cranmer's Calvinist view was that (A) Jesus' body does not go to the stomach, while I found (B) Luther's view, the view of Lutheran Bp. Satterlee, the patristic view, and the Orthodox view to be that Jesus' body goes to the stomache. Which of those two sets of views do you most identify with?
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
rakovsky said:
So Cranmer's Calvinist view was that (A) Jesus' body does not go to the stomach, while I found (B) Luther's view, the view of Lutheran Bp. Satterlee, the patristic view, and the Orthodox view to be that Jesus' body goes to the stomache. Which of those two sets of views do you most identify with?
I agree with the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.  The Eucharist is a supernatural eating and not capernaitic as with normal food.  That is why the Eucharist is not "cannibalism".

Luther said a lot of things, as he said he was a wandering star.  But if you want a systematic explanation, we are going to have to dig deeper.  That's one of the things the Lutheran fathers did, they tried to engage with the biblical texts and the early church.
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Faith
Lutheran
Jurisdiction
ELCA
Cyrillic said:
The C.S. Lewis who wrote in the introduction to Mere Christianity that "I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else."?
That's why I said mere Christianity is at the center of Anglicanism.  Of course there is more to it than that.  Lewis' description of Mere Christianity, however, is decidedly Anglican.

One could indeed be an Anglican and be a mere Christian.  I've met a lot of those types.  They aren't interested in polemics or scholastic distinctions.  In fact, that is the ethos of Anglicanism- good worship and dogmatic minimalism.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
27
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
Trying to find or describe Anglican dogmata or philosophical propositions is like nailing jelly to a wall. Anglicanism displays the typical English disregard for dogma and systems of thought. An admirable character trait when the subject isn't religion.

Calvinists and Roman Catholic-wannabees can both legitimately claim to be Anglican, and nobody seems to be too bothered by this theological schizofrenia within the CoE.

Daedelus1138 said:
In fact, that is the ethos of Anglicanism- good worship and dogmatic minimalism.
Quite. To some degree the Anglican Church is still the Tory Party at prayer. A place where respectable people go to see and be seen. Oh, and nothing too serious, please.

Perhaps the English Civil War is to blame.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Daedelus1138 said:
rakovsky said:
Which of those two sets of views do you most identify with?
if you want a systematic explanation, we are going to have to dig deeper.  That's one of the things the Lutheran fathers did, they tried to engage with the biblical texts and the early church.
Daedelus,
My goal in this thread is not particularly to pin down your own beliefs, but rather what the Articles teach on the real presence. Earlier you wrote that you don't see how the Articles can be denying a real presence in bread.

So my first set of questions has been those I posted earlier:
1. How should we address the fact that both sides of the issue when Article 29 was inserted saw Article 29 as denying an objective presence in bread?

2. What is the importance of the fact that the commentaries on the Articles most contemporary to them understand the Articles as denying an objective presence in bread?


3. Many Anglican proponents of the objective presence in bread interpret Article 29 as only denying that the wicked and unfaithful "partake" of Christ in the sense of communing with him. If that was really the only intent of Article 29, then why did Article 29 become so important to insert that the Church of England was willing to suspend bishops for opposing its insertion?

Since Catholics and Protestants already agree that it is the faithful who "partake" of Christ in the sense of communion, why did the C.o.E. insist on adding Article 29 with so much internal dissension, unless the C.O.E. was distinguishing its beliefs from Lutherans and Catholics who agree that the unfaithful "bodily" "eat" Christ's body?

These are open questions to anyone else who thinks The Articles nowhere deny the objective presence.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
27
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
Nobody takes those articles seriously, least of all the Anglicans.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Cyrillic said:
Nobody takes those articles seriously, least of all the Anglicans.
What I have found is that Anglican commentators, then and today come down fairly equally on two sides of whether the Articles teach a real presence in bread. And it *happens* that they generally find the Articles to agree with their own interpretation of the Eucharistic presence in bread.

They never say "I believe the Bible teaches an objective presence in bread, but I've carefully read the Articles and conclude that the Articles teach the opposite from the Bible and the Articles are wrong." Nor do the Anglicans say the opposite.

So either A) they are interpreting the Articles to match their own beliefs or else B) they've grown up all their life learning from the Articles and judging what the Bible says based on their own reading of the Articles, even though highly educated Anglican theologians collectively don't reach a consistent position on what they say.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,500
Reaction score
158
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Monastic Error
The Economist
Dec 23rd 1999

DEATH in those days was the usual price for defying kings, and late in 1539 three abbots paid it. Their crime? Refusing to surrender their abbeys to the crown. ... [But] Henry was no Protestant. Granted, in the late 1530s Protestant tints did appear in religious life. Parish churches were ordered to acquire English bibles for public reading; and an official version appeared with the king's image on the frontispiece. Yet in the very year that he had the greatest monasteries dissolved, Henry reasserted Catholic doctrine and had Protestants burned as heretics. The “Act of Six Articles” reaffirmed that priests should be celibate—prompting Archbishop Cranmer to send his wife, always a well-hidden woman, out of the country. The act also declared it heresy to deny, as some Reformers did, the church's dogma of “transubstantiation”, the belief that in the eucharist the bread and wine become the very body and blood of Christ.
...
Under Henry, in other words, England had Catholicism without the pope. It was the reign (and the personal beliefs) of Elizabeth I, and the foreign challenges she faced, that were to change that. Yet the fate of the monasteries symbolised something important; not a change of faith, but an abiding English reality, the subordination of spiritual power to temporal. The true English churchman was neither Bishop Fisher nor the Protestant Bishop Latimer, burned under Mary's gruesome misrule, but the mythical Vicar of Bray a century later, who changed his views with every change of government.
The Vicar of Bray (Traditional) (Lyrics) Arr.P.M.Adamson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVjNxkvfgwo

The Vicar of Bray - Stanley Holloway - 1937
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6SIvnurl0
"He seemed to think I changed me policy like I changed my policy like I changed my shirt. But he was wrong. The policy is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow: Whatsoever king may reign, I will still be the Vicar of Bray."

Very funny, apropos lyrics for understanding the foundational period of Anglicanism. What was demanded of the faithful and clergy was not really so much as having a unified coherent theory on certain theological questions (eg. the Eucharist) as submission to the power of the king and state in church affairs, as the ruler would then dictate the policy via this combined state-church apparatus headed by the king.
 
Top