What are you interested in exploring?.. I look at all debates people have, and to me out communion rite in the prayerbook makes things really clear... we consume the body and blood of Christ; it is received by faith and not corporally.. it is a mark of redemption and cleanses our souls and bodies for the continual journey of sanctification
There have been arguments over the precise meaning of the words, subtexts, contexts, and rubrics since the beginning, and the variety of opinions have only grown in the past century. Is there a more specific question that you have in mind?
Ok I believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist not just in a Spiritual way. The Articles leave room for the spiritual real presence and more Lutheran view. Where is a good book or read on our Eucharist Theology? I also like how we leave it as a mastery and do not define it but I do wish we were a bit more precise
Do you believe that the spiritual reality is real? I never understood why people need something other than the spiritual as if the spiritual is somehow less real, or “virtual” or less satisfactory
One of the central points of debate is the nature of Christ himself - can he be spiritually present without being bodily present? Can we participate in his divinity without also participating in his humanity? Depending upon how you approach those questions, terms like "carnal" versus "physical" versus "spiritual" versus "bodily" can suddenly become incredibly technical and significant. B. Wallace, I'd recommend you look at expositions of the 39 Articles to explore this subject. Grab an Angl0-Catholic and an Anglo-Evangelical to compare & contrast what they make of the language
We have a metaphorical oxymoron here surely? The Eucharistic bread and wine are sacramental, therefore symbolic externals of an inward and spiritual truth. A mystery. There is no need of physically 'embellishing' that sacramental truth by insisting the elements are anything other than memorial and present sacraments, therefore symbolic of a greater and more profound spiritual truth than any physical reality they may embody. Sacraments are a physical concession by a generous God to the natural spiritual insensibilities of humankind. God understands our need for the physical in order to access the spiritual. .
On my docket to publish are John Bradford, the martyr and the author of a notable Treatise on the Eucharist. Also Jeremy Taylor's Real and Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. And also Thomas Cranmer's Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. For the time being John Jewel's Treatise on the Sacraments remains our prized possession. All of these contain a single body of teaching. There are also interesting and useful teachings in Nowell's Catechism: https://www.anglican.net/works/alex...r-the-institution-of-christian-religion-1572/ And in Beveridge's commentary on the Church Catechism: https://www.anglican.net/works/william-beveridge-church-catechism-explained-1720/
A: Matt.28:20, John 14:16. Were either of these promises of a 'physical', 'carnal' or 'bodily', prescence, 'to the end of the age, at all times, forever'? "“If sacraments had not a certain likeness and representation of the things whereof they be Sacraments, then indeed they were no sacraments.” And because of this likeness which they have with the things they represent, they be oftentimes termed by the names of the things themselves. Therefore after a certain manner of speech ( and not otherwise ) the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ ; so the Sacrament of faith, is faith." .
No offense but the matter is not so settled as that. People have debated and talked this over for thousands of years now and all been devout Christians at the same time.
Maybe not but piety alone does not guarantee true doctrine and the Pharisees could be accused of many things but lack of piety or devotion to their own understanding of doctrine was not one of them. Matt.5:20. The extremity of piousness of our belief concerning the nature of the Eucharist is not what gets us into the Kingdom of Heaven anyhow. .
The Holy Spirit lives (in local Presence) in each child of God. If one believes that the Spirit of God is really, locally present in the Eucharist, it is no more necessary (nor spiritually edifying) to suppose that God is physically present in the Eucharist, than it is to suppose that God the Holy Spirit is physically present (as opposed to Spirit presence) in the redeemed believer. That said, theology does not teach that the 3rd Person of the Trinity is present in the Eucharist, but rather that the 2nd Person is. This does muddy things up somewhat, I think. It poses a bit of a problem to our mental conception, since we understand Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be distinct Persons; if Jesus is locally present in the Eucharist but not physically present, then does Jesus have a spirit that can be distinguished from the Holy Spirit? I would answer in the affirmative, because Jesus was and is both 'very man' and 'very God', and every human has a spirit (we are tripartite beings of spirit, soul and body, made in God's image, 1 Thess. 5:23). If, on the other hand, Jesus were said to not have a human spirit, but instead is said to have the fullness of the Holy Spirit and no other spirit, then a Spiritual-only Presence in the Eucharist would more properly be termed "the Holy Spirit" rather than "Jesus." (And since I don't imagine any Christian would find this concept to be entirely orthodox, perhaps that is part of the reason why some Protestants stick with memorialism.) (Those who believe in Jesus' physical Presence in the Eucharist, such as the Romans, turn a blind eye to the lack of physical evidence thereof , as well as the proscriptions against drinking blood and eating human flesh. Jesus would not teach His followers to violate Scripture.)
I think that it is a mistake to try and overly unpack the notion of real presence. Christians in general will acknowledge a panentheistic view of the cosmos, however when it comes to the Eucharist we are speaking more specifically, and more deliberately than a general affirmation of pantheism. The presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist is a primitive and pre-conciliar view, and this is the acknowledgment of our sisters and brothers in the East for whom the Epiclesis is more significant than the Institution narrative, and has been a consistently held view in that part of the church since ancient times. I am really not sure what to do with your third paragraph. I will say that I think that getting our Christology sorted is very important, and our Eucharistic Theology will follow that. The difficulty I have with the theology of transubstantiation is that it is focused on the physical, whereas we know that Christ calls us to be focussed on the Kingdom of God. Matter matters, yes, however matter is not the only this that matters, and matter may well not matter most. There were any number of things Jesus could have said, and yet he said This is my body and we are invited to that table set in this world and the next. It is not a matter of a blind eye, it is a matter of faith. Lift up your hearts
Alert! A a panentheistic view is not pantheism. They are two different things, one not heretical the other very. I assume this was a typo. You won't get me affirming pantheism, generally or deliberately. .