Spiritual Real Presence

Adam,
Excellent post.

 

Thank you!

And any Reformed-minded folks out there may call me an Alexandrian. That's ok. It doesn't bother me.

 

OK, Alex.

 

I honestly don't get what the discussion is all about I see this as fairly simple...

The outward symbol of the Eucharist is the bread and the wine and inward symbol is the body and blood of Christ....

everything else just seems to be lets make something of this that is intellectual for the sake of making something intellectual.

God (Creator, Redeemer, Guide) did not mean for all this to be complicated it is simple OK....

IMHO

 

Hello Gordon,

I agree with you that this is a simple issue. That is why I affirm the plain sense of the words: "This is my body." Difficulties and complexities arise out of the denial of this plain sense.

Yours in Christ,
Jerome

 

Gordon,
Christ never said the Bread and Wine are symbols. The Bread is His flesh.

John 6:
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Remember, being raised to eternal life and Christ abiding in us and us in Him is connected to consuming His Body and Blood.

When the Jews asked how Jesus could give us His flesh to eat, it would have been the perfect time for Jesus to say this is symbolic.

John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Instead---Jesus said His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink.

John 6:
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

This was a hard saying for many disciples, who turned back and no longer followed Jesus.

John 6:
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

How does one eat the true Flesh of Christ and drink His true Blood, if not through the Holy Eucharist?

Peace,
Anna

 

All through the Gospels Jesus talks in symbolism and parables. If you were to take the accounts of the Last Supper from the Gospels and the Pauline Espistles Jesus gave us the Eucharist as a way to remember that he did die for us using the simple readily available every day items (bread and wine). Unlike the Law of Moses where the different levels of sacrifice would have been required.

 

Further to my response above, in relation to the outward and inward symbols I am referring to what the Church taught in the BCP 1662 'A Catechism' which is what I was taught before being confirmed and admitted for first communion in the Anglican Church.

You can find a PDF of the 1662 BCP on the www if you google it, but the following is an extract from the BCP 1662...

In it you will see that Anglicans referred to the sacraments as being of two parts and outward part and an inward part the outward part being a physical thing and the inward part being the inward spiritual grace received by the sacrament. I have highlighted the parts I am talking about in bold:

So when I as an Anglican talk about a Spiritual Real Presence that is what I am talking about the inward spiritual grace received.

 

Gordon,
I appreciate your posting this section of the 1662 BCP. However, I was asking questions about what is contained in Holy Scripture.

Christ never said the Bread and Wine are symbols. The Bread is His flesh.

John 6:
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Remember, being raised to eternal life and Christ abiding in us and us in Him is connected to consuming His Body and Blood.

When the Jews asked how Jesus could give us His flesh to eat, it would have been the perfect time for Jesus to say this is symbolic.

John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Instead---Jesus said His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink.

John 6:
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

This was a hard saying for many disciples, who turned back and no longer followed Jesus.

John 6:
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

So, again I ask, How does one eat the true Flesh of Christ and drink His true Blood, if not through the Holy Eucharist?

Peace,
Anna

 

I believe I response above, and I added the BCP reference to highlight what Anglicans believe.

 

Adam,
We are definitely in agreement. I respect the historical significance of the 39 Articles, but I don't think they trump Holy Scripture. That is why I was asking Gorden about what Scripture actually says, which is that we must eat the true Flesh of Christ and drink His true Blood. If not through the Holy Eucharist, how is this accomplished? It is such an important issue, it is connected with be raised to eternal life; and more importantly it is a means in which Christ abides in us and we in Him. So, it's important to get this right.

Originally, submission to the 39 Articles was required and assent was to be given according to the literal sense of the Articles. However, the Lambeth Conference of 1968 recommended that assent to the Articles no longer be required of clergy, but that they be understood as an historic document---and the recommendation was adopted. Link: http://www.lambethconference.org/res...68/1968-43.cfm

Anglicanism is known for diversity. Some Anglicans are Anglo Catholics; and some are more Reformed and see themselves as Protestants.

You and I are definitely Anglo Catholics.

 

Anglicans have always told the world that we believe in the ,'Real Presence,' this is because Christ tells us that this ,'Is My Body, This is My Blood,'!
When I Celebrate at the Mass or Eucharist, I have no doubts or worries,I do not bother to that extent, I have been told, through Scripture, that Christ is present and as far as I know neither Christ nor the Church have lied to me, so I believe. I can't prove of myself and I do not need proof!Queen Eliza, is famously reported as saying,

" Christ was the word who spake it,
Christ took the bread and brake it
and what His word doth make it'
That I believe and take it!"

 

Not all Anglicans support the doctrine of transubstantiation, all Anglicans that I know support the concept of the spiritual real presence and that is what I believe John was referring to in his Gospel. This is one of those subjects that will never be truly understood and any discussion on the different will continually go around in circles.

 

I personally do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation (though I take no theological issue with it either). Rather I believe in the sacramental union of the earthly elements of bread and wine to the heavenly body of Jesus Christ. This union is a mystery. This does not mean that we are left in total darkness. By Christ's Word we know what the Eucharist is (Christ's true body and blood). What we don't know is how the Eucharist is. There--as I see it--lies the difference.

I also agree with Anna Scott, Adam Warlock, and High Churchman that it is Sacred Scripture--not the 39 articles--that must finally determine our doctrine of the Eucharist, being the sole norm, rule and authority for our faith. In addition, it does us well to sit at the feet of the early church fathers, in whom the same Holy Spirit who dwells in our hearts dwelled, and learn from them the blessedness of this medicine of immortality.

 

Here in lies the reason why some believe it and some don't - it depends on how the differing camps interpret the scripture. I for one are glad that people throughout the ages question what we believe, else we would still believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

 

The multiplicity of interpretations regarding the nature of the Eucharist does not entail a multiplicity of truths. Either the body and blood of Christ is present in the Sacrament, as Christ told us in the most plain sense possible ("This IS My Body"), or the body and blood of Christ are absent from the Sacrament, an interpretation which requires us to complicate the plain meaning of Christ's words and to deny the indivisible, inseparable union of the two natures in Christ (if the divine nature can be present without the human nature, then the divine and human natures are not indivisible and inseparable and the Scripture lies when it says that in Christ "the fullness of the deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9)).

I agree with you, Gordon, that we ought to seek to better understand our faith. But we do this by faith seeking understanding, and not by 'understanding' seeking faith.

Yours in Christ,
Jerome

 

Gordon,
You are right. It does come down to interpretation, and also the Tradition we have received down through the generations.

I am convinced that Christ is present both spiritually and physically; but I respect your right to disagree. Your posts certainly demonstrate a devotion to our Lord and to Holy Scripture.

These discussions lead us all to evaluate what we believe and measure those beliefs again Holy Scripture. That is always a good thing.

Peace and blessings to you, Gordon,
Anna

 

This post will be my last in this thread because it is just going around in circles which is why is easy to see why Christianity is so fractured on theological and dogmatic grounds. I asked my spiritual director (Franciscans and budding Franciscans have them LOL) he is a Franciscan and an Anglican Priest and has been a Priest and missionary for over 20 years. Here was his response when I asked him what his take and what he was taught in regards to the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist:

His belief on the subject is the same as mine and a heck of a lot of other Anglicans around the world.

 

Gordon,
I appreciate your posting the quote. I realize many Anglicans believe as you do; and many believe as I do. That's part of the diversity in Anglicanism.

It has been an interesting discussion, and I appreciate all your comments. Hopefully, we all learned something.

Peace,
Anna

 

Adam,
I think you're right; but at least this discussion has been a respectful one. That is something difficult to find on the Internet.

Peace,
Anna