The Real Presence

[NinjaSnark]

well, any way he meant it, the uncertainty has divided Christianity. The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…so if Christ’s purpose was to have us all on the same page with this, then he dropped the ball. As such, I would think that he didn’t have that purpose.

This is an appeal to the majority- and it’s a logical fallacy. The number of people who believe or do not believe something has absolutely no bearing on its truthfulness. The entire world could believe the world was flat except for you- and the entire world would be incorrect.

 

[Radical]

This is an appeal to the majority- and it’s a logical fallacy.

you need to read more carefully…I haven’t said that one view is correct b/c it possesses the majority. The poster I responded to suggested that Jesus could have been clear that he was speaking symbolically. That most Christians don’t believe in a RBP demonstrates that, for most Christians, Christ wasn’t at all clear that he was speaking about a RBP. Regarding whether Christ was clear or not in his meaning (as preserved in the gospels), the evidence speaks for itself and he sure wasn’t clear (to most Christians) that he was describing some new form of exitence…got it?

 

[Cheshangle]

By making the comparison to Unitarianism, I meant that the “Broad Church” comprizes the more liberal, less ecclesiastical element in the Anglican ecclesial community. It embraces latitudinarianism – first established by S.T. Coleridge, who died in1858.

I would say the Unitarians who participated in the survey you reported are latitudinarian.
Anything goes.

Could you post that Quadrilateral again, please?

How do you decide between the three conflicting but equally valid positions in the Anglican ecclesial community?

Thanks, Jim Dandy

The four points of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral are:

i) The Holy Scripture as containing all things necessary to salvation;

ii) The Creeds (specifically the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds) as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith;

iii) The Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion;;

iv) The historic Episcopate.

I note the points made by GKC.

 

[Cheshangle]

Please review your facts. Catholicism and Orthodoxy together comprise well over half of the world Christian population and both believe in the Real Presence.

Virtually no Protestants worship the Eucharist, so when a Protestant claims to believe in the “Real Presence” that belief is always watered down so that Christ is not really there.

Maybe you could find pseudo-Adoration (no orders, ergo no consecration) in the Church of Sweden or something, though. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

I hope that you are not including me in the assertion you make in your first paragraph. It would be most uncharitable for you to do so.

 

[Cheshangle]

Although I didn’t move through an Anglican or Episcopalian church on my voyage to Rome, I did see something similar in the Methodist church and so I share your frustration.

I hope that you and your traditional Anglican bretheren can eventually make the jump into the Ordinariate. You’d be a great asset to the Catholic Church.

As GKC says, that’s very kind of you: thanks.

However, I’m already spoken for. I’m an Anglican.

 

[Bluegoat]

Do you worship the Eucharist?

If not then how can you claim His presence is Real?

Anglicans are required to treat the Eucharist with due reverence. How precisely that is done depends on the part of the tradition they come from. A few have things like adoration. Many don’t, however I would point out that the Orthodox also do not have adoration or keep extra around for people to pray to or be in the presence of outside of the Eucharistic service.

I can certainly say that while my parish only keeps extra Sacrament for things like home visits, we do treat it very carefully, kneel when receiving, make the Mass the center of our worship, are careful about who handles the sacrament, and make sure that the Mass is very reverent. No lines or leaving immediately after receiving, although I have unfortunately seen the former in some Anglican churches.

 

[Bluegoat]

This began when Cheshangle, an Anglican, wrote in posts #13 and 14 that he believes in the Real Presence and that the “Anglican stance” supports that belief.

I observed that Anglicanism covers three distinct belief systems - the Anglo-Catholics (High Church), the evangelicals (Low Church) and the liberals (Broad Church). The Broad Church seems to me similar to the Unitarians, who have no required set of beliefs. Neither the Low nor Broad churches believe in the Real Presence.

My long lost half-brother told me he is Unitarian. He described his religious beliefs as “optional.” I was merely trying to describe my understanding of the Broad Church’s liberal POV. I am not Anglican, but I have read about the three-church division within Anglicanism in many books. It’s difficult for me to understand how Anglicanism can encompass three such divergent beliefs.

Please see GKC’s very informative reply to me in post #34.

If I offended the three of you – or anyone – I apologize.

Jim Dandy

Low Church people have not traditionally denies the Real Presence - they have understood it in a way very similar to what one sees in the Lutheran or some Calvinist groups. There are certainly some differences especially in the latter, but they are rather subtle points and not really that close to a symbol only POV. (As in, what does it mean to have what St Paul describes as a spiritual body, and in relation to that what does it mean to say the Eucharist is spiritual.) And I would say that traditionally Broad Church people have said the same things as the high and low.

The modern phenomena of people claiming a symbol only understanding is modern, and probably springs from the same place as the modern Catholics who also believe it is only a symbol.

Have the old broad churchers morphed into the modern “liberal” Christians? I think that their congregations have to a large degree, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a clear change between the two groups. The Broad Church people did actually recognize the same kinds of limits on what it is to be an Anglican as other Anglicans did, whereas modern liberal Anglicans do not. Those people are indeed very like Unitarians in their outlook, or perhaps Cafeteria Catholics.

Edit: the problem I think is you are trying to place modern Anglicans into those three groups, and it won’t work. What you will find is that you now see traditional high-church Anglo-Catholic, liberal high-church, traditional low-church, liberal low church, evangelical, and middle of the road liberal. The latter are those who used to be broad, and I don’t know if there are many old-fashioned broad types. A lot of the old low types are now evangelical, and they tend to be almost like baptists or congregationalists, and sometimes don’t even use liturgy.

And in fact they can’t all hold together under the same umbrella, which is why Anglicanism is in the process of re-arranging itself. But a lot of those groups simply don’t correspond to any kind of historical Anglicanism.

 

[JonNC]

Do you worship the Eucharist?

If not then how can you claim His presence is Real?

With the indulgence of the OP, who specifically asked for the views of those who do not accept the real presence, I’ll make just a short response to Cat’s question.

Lutheran do worship the Eucharist. For most Lutherans worship and adoration takes place during the sacramental act. We also view the greatest act of Eucharistic worship to be in response to Christ’s words, to eat and drink.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Low Church people have not traditionally denies the Real Presence - they have understood it in a way very similar to what one sees in the Lutheran or some Calvinist groups. There are certainly some differences especially in the latter, but they are rather subtle points and not really that close to a symbol only POV. (As in, what does it mean to have what St Paul describes as a spiritual body, and in relation to that what does it mean to say the Eucharist is spiritual.) And I would say that traditionally Broad Church people have said the same things as the high and low.

The modern phenomena of people claiming a symbol only understanding is modern, and probably springs from the same place as the modern Catholics who also believe it is only a symbol.

Have the old broad churchers morphed into the modern “liberal” Christians? I think that their congregations have to a large degree, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a clear change between the two groups. The Broad Church people did actually recognize the same kinds of limits on what it is to be an Anglican as other Anglicans did, whereas modern liberal Anglicans do not. Those people are indeed very like Unitarians in their outlook, or perhaps Cafeteria Catholics.

Edit: the problem I think is you are trying to place modern Anglicans into those three groups, and it won’t work. What you will find is that you now see traditional high-church Anglo-Catholic, liberal high-church, traditional low-church, liberal low church, evangelical, and middle of the road liberal. The latter are those who used to be broad, and I don’t know if there are many old-fashioned broad types. A lot of the old low types are now evangelical, and they tend to be almost like baptists or congregationalists, and sometimes don’t even use liturgy.

And in fact they can’t all hold together under the same umbrella, which is why Anglicanism is in the process of re-arranging itself. But a lot of those groups simply don’t correspond to any kind of historical Anglicanism.

I tend to agree with this, mostly. In fact, I was considering making a clarifying post, that the three categories being discussed are not hard and fast, fenced enclaves. They were, and to some extent still are, a useful way of organizing one’s thoughts about the range of Anglican thought (morphing from what it was to what it is, a moving target). But Anglicans don’t get lapel pins to identify where they fall; by their actions and words you might know them, but it’s often an approximation. As Anglicanism is a spectrum, the divisions within it tend to be too. Clarity is only found in tghe extremes.

I’m an extreme, myself.

GKC

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Thanks GKC, Blue Goat, Cheshangle, and all others who have devoted so much time and effort to explaining modern Anglicanism to me. Lessons noted. Much obliged.

Jim Dandy

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC, Blue Goat, Cheshangle, and all others who have devoted so much time and effort to explaining modern Anglicanism to me. Lessons noted. Much obliged.

Jim Dandy

For my part, and on behalf of the others (I bet), you are very welcome. The first post I ever made, anywhere, over 10 years ago, was to explain Anglicanism. It’s a complicated subject (many things are). And the 2nd post, following that, was to argue with another sort of Anglican, who had disagreed with me (and he still does).

Nothing changes much.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m an extreme, myself.

GKC

I suppose I am too. My parish was originally made up of Lutherans, but now it is pretty clearly Tractarian with a dose of Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[GKC]

I suppose I am too. My parish was originally made up of Lutherans, but now it is pretty clearly Tractarian with a dose of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I bet I’m extremer than you.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

I bet I’m extremer than you.

GKC

I don’t know. I have a nose ring. How many Tractarians with nose rings do you know?

 

[GKC]

I don’t know. I have a nose ring. How many Tractarians with nose rings do you know?

Now there’s a point to ponder.

GKC

 

[novusCatholic]

…The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…so if Christ’s purpose was to have us all on the same page with this, then he dropped the ball…

In John 6, after Jesus agressively declared that his flesh is real food and that his blood is real drink, only the Apostles believed and remained. Everyone else left because they couldn’t accept his teaching. I’ll stay with the Apostles. It’s not about numbers.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And you are wrong as well. Why would Christ leave people second guessing as to what verbage he truly intended to use?

well, any way he meant it, the uncertainty has divided Christianity. The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…so if Christ’s purpose was to have us all on the same page with this, then he dropped the ball. As such, I would think that he didn’t have that purpose.

Christianity is divided more than just the Eucharist. The majority of Christians? So that alone proves the RP is false? Your views and beliefs do not change anything about God’s Truth.You got more than one source supporting your claims? Second,the fact you and so-called the majority do not believe does not change an iota about the RP. Do you honestly believe your disbelief is going to change what God taught or said? Many Christians deny Hell-does that mean it does not exist? I can rob a bank and deny there is not prison or consequences-does that mean no prisons exist because of my disbelief? Your lack of faith in no shape or from disproves the RP at all.

Quote:
If Christ meant it to be symbolic,he would have easily used the proper terminology describing a symbolic Eucharist. You are merely guessing and assuming Christ could have meant something different.

we are talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing God here…as such, if he meant it to be some sort of hithertobefore unknown manner of the existence of his body in the element of bread, then I think such a God wouldn’t have broken a sweat finding the terminology to describe that unique manner of existence…heck, I can do it in one sentence w/o effort.

Yes and amazing you being a mere mortal no exactly God would have never given Us His body and blood and two simple elements-right? And why? Because it is not logical or makes no sense-right? You a mere mortal know God created everything out of nothing,but it is not possible to gives us the RP? I too can display your spiritual pride w/o effort.

Quote:
BTW: As of today Radical,you have yet to show me one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 1,000 years) teaching the RP was a heresy or false.

Well, thanks for the update…please continue to keep me posted. Here are some other things that I haven’t done:

Oh you are welcomed.

1. I haven’t shown you one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 300 years) teaching that the belief that the Shepherd of Hermas = scripture was a heresy or false. I haven’t shown you one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 300 years) teaching that the belief that Revelation was not scripture was a heresy or false. It is almost as if the early church, in some instances where the teaching wasn’t received from the apostles, was prepared to allow divergent views to exist w/o having a serious blow-up about the matter (with one local church calling another local church heretical for possessing a different view)…it is almost as if the ECFs were prepared to allow themselves the opportunity to suggest various ideas (some innovative, some not) and to build upon those ideas to come to a consensus…at least once that approach of adding to the original deposit seems to have worked quite well, other times, not so much

Thanks for the commentary,but unfortunately nothing you said answered my question.

1. I also haven’t shown you that the Early Church of the first 4 centuries possessed a uniform belief WRT the presence of Christ in the Eucharist…I can’t cause no such uniform belief existed. J Pelikan, in his first volume of The Christian Tradition writes:

Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence
I have probably shown you that F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, wrote:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.
The diversity (seen by Pelikan) and the absence (seen by van der Meer and others) sure would be odd things if a Real Bodily Presence was taught from the outset, but would be rather expected if the ECFs were prepared to allow themselves the opportunity to suggest various ideas (some innovative, some not) and to build upon those ideas to come to a consensus…and, of course, as I have told you before, Kilmartin tracks the establishment of a real somatic presence view to the Antiochene school of the 4th Century.

I am not concerned what your so-called modern scholars have to say. It is all old news to me what you are writing,heard it all and read it all. I want you to provide me ECF’s clearly teaching the RP was false and a heresy. Amazing many ECF’s discuss and fight off heresies,but the RP is ignored all together? That is what I want to read with my eyes,not who said what or one particular scholar has to say. I want to read the writings of the very men who lived in the early church. Are you capable of accomplishing the task at hand?

 

[kylemccloughan]

Do you worship the Eucharist?

If not then how can you claim His presence is Real?

Because of the context in which Jesus taught us about his body and blood at the table with his Apostles. In our parish, we don’t not enter into a venue to worship the Eucharist. It is the elements of bread and wine offered up to God as he sends his blessing back down to us as the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. We partake in it just as Jesus did with his Apostles.

 

[hn160]

Do you worship the Eucharist?

If not then how can you claim His presence is Real?

The purpose of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is to receive Christ’s very Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The purpose of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is to receive Christ’s very Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Because of the context in which Jesus taught us about his body and blood at the table with his Apostles. In our parish, we don’t not enter into a venue to worship the Eucharist. It is the elements of bread and wine offered up to God as he sends his blessing back down to us as the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. We partake in it just as Jesus did with his Apostles.

This is what I meant when I said that most Protestant Eucharistic views claim the “Real Presence” but still treat the Eucharist differently than if Jesus was right in front of them.