D
Deegie
Guest
I think you are correct in describing the position of Hooker and Cranmer as receptionism. I should point out, however, that many would still call that a doctrine of Real Presence. The distinction between it and other theories is that in receptionism, the change is within the communicant and not within the eucharistic elements themselves. Regardless of whether you accept that suggestion, however, eucharistic theology has never been one of those “we must all agree” dogmas, so you will find significant variation among individual Anglicans.
As to my position…I am much closer to the Tractarians than to the earlier Anglican writers. I believe there is some sort of physical presence, but as Symphorian nicely expressed, I am “reticent on defining the precise mode of His presence”. I’m okay with mystery and think there is a long history (especially in the East) of valuing that mystery. Indeed, most of the early church fathers made no effort to elucidate a mechanism of change. That said, I do not believe in Transubstantiation. If pinned down, I would probably come closest to Luther’s view…at least with what Luther said and not what others have attributed to him over the years. For example, his Large Catechism says that the elements become “the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink”. That is a statement I can easily affirm.
I should note, by the way, that the Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statement on the Eucharist contains another way of putting it with which I agree: “Communion with Christ in the Eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood.* …its purpose is to transmit the life of the crucified and risen Christ to his body, the Church, so that its members may be more fully united with Christ and with one another.”