Spiritual Real Presence

What are the Anglican views on the real presence?

The differences between virtualism and receptionalism seems a bit too subtle for me to see really what the difference is. As far as I'm aware both can be held as acceptable in the 39 articles. Memorialsm is normally classed under a different label in theological discussions. And the 39 articles definately rejects memorialism. So I would say yes, real spirtiual presence is a viable category and I suppose as any category can be divded into sub categories.

 

Hmmm OK I thought they were different... to me receptionalism is not saying that Christ is really present where virtualise is.

 

I think it's plausible, though the anglican solution is much better...

what's obviously not meant is the 'memorialism' view, which we as anglicans must fervently strive to avoid

 

Gordon,
As an Anglo Catholic, I'm really very surprised that no Anglicans have posted a belief in the Real Presence, meaning the Bread and Wine do become the true Body and true Blood of Christ.

Our Rector does teach the Real Presence of Christ, but does not rely upon "Aristotle's metaphysics" as Catholics have done in Transubstantiation. We yield to the Mystery of the Real Presence and believe upon Consecration, the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is present both Spiritually and Physically. The Sacrament is reserved for the sick and home-bound, and a Sanctuary Lamp is continuously lit above the Sacrament.

The belief in the Real Presence comes from the Words of Christ found in John Chapter 6:

Not all Anglicans hold to a strict adherence to the 39 Articles.

 

I believe they have...

Anglicans or most I know believe in the Spiritual 'Real Presence' of Christ at the Eucharist... Transubstantiation is foreign to Anglicans. I did make reference to that belief in the quotes I made above.

 

Gordon,
I noted the reference; but look closely at what I said, "Our Rector does teach the Real Presence of Christ, but does not rely upon "Aristotle's metaphysics" as Catholics have done in Transubstantiation. We yield to the Mystery of the Real Presence and believe upon Consecration, the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ." Christ is both spiritual and physically/materially present. This is not out of line with classical Anglicanism.

There are some excellent articles on conciliaranglican.wordpress.com.

On the Eucharist: Spiritual Food is Real Food
". . .So then, “spiritual food” and “spiritual feeding” cannot be interpreted to mean that there is no local presence of Christ in the sacrament at all. The spiritual reality of how we receive is not in contradiction with the objective and even the material reality of how Christ gives Himself to us in the sacrament. Rather, it is precisely the coming together of the spiritual and the material that results in our ability, as creatures who are both spiritual and physical, to feed on Christ and receive the benefits of His passion. . . . . . . . . . That does not mean that Christ is not objectively, fully, even materially present when the bread and wine are placed in our mouths. . . ." Link: http://conciliaranglican.wordpress.com/

I have considered Transubstantiation, and I know some Anglo Catholics accept it.

However, I accept our Lord's words that His Body and Blood are true food and true drink; and in faith, I yield to the Mystery of the Sacrament, knowing that I am receiving the Body and Blood of Christ both spiritually and materially/physically.

 

Hence why I say go back to scripture... It really doesn't matter at the end of the day. Jesus said do this in remembrance of me....

 

I'm with ya 100%!

 

This has been a great and insightful discussion! Speaking for myself, I believe that Christ's body and blood are really present in the sacrament. Whether that "real presence" means transubstantiation is something that I think is a mystery. Therefore, I don't want to reject either doctrine because we just don't really know for sure. However, I think we can all agree that we do receive Christ's blood and body in the sacrament and that his blood and body are really present in the sacrament.

 

Thanks for your comments, Sean. I absolutely agree.

 

I'll post that belief.

Yes it does.

 

I am currently reading a book called "Little Poor Man" it is about the life and times of St. Francis of Assisi. Chapter 44 talks about an ecumenical council in 1215 and the first canon to be forced through the council was Pope Innocent III's Papal declaration of the finalisation of the doctrine of transubstantiation against the belief of many of the Roman Church cardinals. He basically said this is the way it is and if you don't believe it you are a heretic and will be put to death.

 

Gordon,
Interesting bit of history. I'll have to put that book on my list.

I'm a fan of St. Francis of Assisi, as you can tell by my signature.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

Hi Anna

Yes I to am a big fan of St. Francis of Assisi I am preparing for admission as a Novice of the Third Order.

Here is a link to the iBook version:

http://www.amazon.com/LITTLE-Story-Francis-Assisi-ebook/dp/B005CZ35A0 (Chapter 44 if I remember rightly.)

 

Gordon,
May God's blessing remain upon you as you enter this Order. I'd love to hear about your journey sometime.

Members of a Benedictine Order attend our Parish. Our Rector is their Confessor.

Anna

 

Thanks Anna will keep you all posted as time goes by.

 

Thanks Gordon. Let me know if you start a blog.

 

Adam,
Yes. Indeed, the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the gift of faith, as you said, bring us into truth.

 

To Anna Scott,

I whole-heartedly agree with your approach to this issue. It is not the "what" of the Eucharist that is unclear, namely, Christ's Body and Blood shed for us for the forgiveness of sins, but the "how", or the method and means by which this occurs. I do not deny a spiritual eating, but neither do I deny a physical. We are not, as the Lutheran confessions state, engaging in a crude capernaitic eating when we partake of the Eucharist, as though we were gnawing on bits of Christ's flesh, but are rather receiving the fullness of the bodily present Christ in a divine, mysterious, and spiritual mode. I agree with much of the 39 articles, but reject the teaching that we only recieve the body of Christ in a spiritual manner, by faith. This is true, but we also receive it physically, through the act of eating with our mouths. I don't presume to explain or inquire into this mystery--I simply adore it.

In addition, the "body-less" interpretation of the Eucharist is not without its own logical difficulties, specifically in regards to Christology and the hypostatic union. Has the Church not spoken decisively on this matter? Are the two natures of Christ not inseparably and indivisibly united in the one person of Christ? If so, how can Christ be said to be "truly present" when He is not fully present as true God and true man? Holy Scripture tells us plainly that in Christ "the fullness of the deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9). Thus while it is true that those who assert the "body-less" doctrine of the Eucharist are without any mystery to adore, they are with a problem to "solve." And it is a problem that threatens the very heart of redemption; for if the two natures of Christ can be separated out in such a Nestorian fashion, then the reality of hypostatic union is destroyed, and the work of Christ as both God and man is called into question.

For my part, I will side with faith in the words of the God who was made flesh and who was crucified for my sake.

 

Great point about the hypostatic union! I believe that the communicatio idiomatum must also be taken into consideration here. Christ was both walking among us and ruling the universe simultaneously. He walked on water and into locked rooms. It would not make sense to describe him as only being present in one way (physical or spiritual) where his body is present, because the One who possessed the physical body was also eternally & fully God. In the case of the Eucharist, of course he is here spiritually. He is also here physically, because it is his Body and Blood. Where his body is, there he fully is. It seems to me that reducing his body to only one mode of presence places limits upon him that do not exist. He is perfect, so his bodily presence is a complete and perfect presence; he is never "almost" or "partially" where he promises to be. So, when he is present in the elements, he is fully there in a miraculous way.